NEW: Twitter has censored @RepJimBanks for calling HHS' Rachel Levine a man. He will be locked out of his account until he deletes the tweet, "The title of first female four-star officer gets taken by a man."
1,621
2,682
561
5,187
If Jim Banks is unhappy with Twitter’s rules of service he’s free not to use their platform.
93
4
5
214
If Twitter wants to be able to censor or moderate content then they should lose government protection for the content on their site. Can’t have it both ways.
18
6
2
86
So you believe that the government should punish Twitter (with civil liability) because Twitter expresses an opinion? Isn't that precisely what the First Amendment prohibits?
12
1
0
56
Nope, I’m thinking Twitter should either be a publisher or a moderator, one or the other. If they want to be a publisher, then they must allow all opinions but take not responsibility for them. If they want to be a moderator they can take a side but are responsible for it.
9
1
1
39
You are claiming that they have two choices, express their own viewpoint or not express their own viewpoint. And you want the latter choice to trigger a government punishment in the form of civil liability. Civil liability for expressing a viewpoint in their media product. 1/2
4
0
0
19
Foregoing a special government benefit isn't punishment.
1
0
0
2
Did you read the Tweet you are responding to? He wants to impose civil liability on them for expressing their viewpoint. You can't seriously be arguing that civil liability is not a punishment.
1
0
0
0
They would normally be subject to liability for their torts, just like anyone else. Treating them no worse than anyone else isn't a punishment.
2
0
0
1
There is no "special government protection" at play, nor is any tort even theoretically at issue. It's a 1st Am issue, under which everyone has the same protection. To commit a tort, you have to abrogate a right. Nobody has a right to have their speech be on twitter.
2
0
0
0
The 230 immunity is a special statutory protection.

7:35 PM · Oct 24, 2021

1
0
0
0
Yes, and it has absolutely nothing to do with why twitter is allowed to exercise editorial control over the content posted to it. That is solely a 1st Amendment right. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_…
2
0
0
0
230 protects twitter from facing liability for content it allows to be posted and/or remain on its site. It has nothing to with what twitter chooses to allow on the site. No one has any right, in any way, ever, to have their content posted to and remain on twitter's site.
2
0
0
0