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."
1,625
2,510
568
4,990
If Jim Banks is unhappy with Twitter’s rules of service he’s free not to use their platform.
89
4
5
207
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.

Oct 23, 2021 · 5:14 PM UTC

18
6
2
83
And if they lose government protection they will be even stricter with what people can & can't say. Why? Because then they would be open to lawsuits. Tell me why does the right believe taking away their protection give them more freedom?
8
1
8
It’s either A or B. Twitter can’t have both. I fully accept that they would be stricter without the protection, as they would have to be, but the protection means they can’t moderate at all.
4
19
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
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.
8
1
1
37
I don't know why but it still depresses me to see government officials or candidates who literally don't know the law. Their ability to moderate content comes from the 1st Amendment. Same reason the NYTimes doesn't have to publish every letter to the editor they get. 1/2
12
230 only protects them from what their users post, nothing more. The publisher/platform stuff is literally not a thing. It's not in the law. It has nothing to do with anything. It was just made up as bullet point to throw up in debates. 2/2
8
Censorship is just a play to control the narrative. Any excuse for censorship beyond pre-established societal bounds is politically motivated. It's called social engineering
1
2
Section 230 does not mean what you think it means. What you’re saying about protection isn’t a thing. Twitter has 1A rights to censor its own platform. Users sign a ToS. Do us all a favor, pretend that you respect 1A the way you respect 2A. They’re both in the Bill of Rights.
2