Comment by bediger4000 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bediger4000 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why is this framed as a "freedom of speech" issue? Twitter isn't a government-with-free-speech-constitution. Twitter has terms of service, and it's well within its rights to kick people off its service.

"Elon Musk Want To Allow Some People to Violate Twitter Terms of Service After Spending Years Silencing Critics". That seems more accurate.

I honestly don't get this sort of thing. The USA has a legal system that prioritizes private property. The USA has spent the last 40 years making it clear that anyone has freedom of speech, but nobody has to listen to it, and most certainly nobody has to pay to spread anyone else's speech. Trump comes along an all that goes out the window - Twitter must carry Trump's TOS-violating speech? Seems hypocritical in the extreme.

The intent of the first amendment is to give individuals the freedom to express their thoughts freely, without any legal repercussions. It's a universal human right, and its implementation into law is irrelevant to any philosophical discussion on morals.

That right has brought freedom and prosperity everywhere it's been implemented with minimal restrictions.

Twitter has become a public platform/forum/news outlet at this point. It's hard for anyone to argue with that, since people go there to get their news and to hear what prominent figures have to say.

Regardless of all that, shouldn't we be insisting that American companies retain core American values? The market can't select for those values since Twitter has no direct competitors, which makes the case for it being a platform even stronger.

You got it correct with "legal repercussions". Getting banned for TOS violations is hardly a legal repercussion, it's just someone exercising property rights. Nobody should have to pay for someone else's speech, good, bad or indifferent.

Lack of legal repercussions is also not lack of social repercussions.

Maybe we should be insisting on American companies retaining core American values, but that's not the legal environment they operate in, which is one of "fiduciary duty" only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com