Nah, just misunderstood and somewhat continue to misunderstand their point. I don't see how the offered info is relevant to whether this is a 1A violation.
"What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure?" Then it's not pressure. It's Twitter doing something they want to do. Just because the government and Twitter agree on something doesn't mean the government "forced them" to do it, which is what the 1A and prior restraint law care about.
"What happens when the party in power changes?" Twitter, like every other company, gets to decide whether or not they want to support or oppose the party in power, and if Twitter feels the government is violating their 1A rights, Twitter can sue them
Again, at the end, you conflate things. I don't feel the need to discuss morality, I find that boring. But legally? It's just strictly not a 1A violation with the info we have now. Twitter can take down whatever they want, it's their website. If I ask, it's not a 1A violation. If Joe Biden in 2020 asks, it's not a 1A violation. If Trump in 2020 asked, it's not a 1A violation (unless Twitter feels like they were forced, which they haven't claimed).
Dunno why you're being downvoted here. "The Law" under "The US Constitution" is not a "technicality" here- it is the guiding document dictating how this conversation should be directed. Biden's role as a private citizen in 2020 is clear, in that light.
Internet communication is considered speech. But, the speech on Twitter's website belongs to Twitter. They get to decide what is on their website. They can, as far as the First Amendment goes, more or less ban or censor anything they want for any reason, because they are a private actor.
If Twitter decided to remove Hunter Biden content completely on their own, that would be legal. If Twitter decided to remove that content because someone asked nicely- regardless of who that person is, whether they are President or not- that would be legal. It's only a legal issue if the government forces Twitter to remove the content, which is not something Twitter has asserted.
If I understand you correctly, your argument asserts bad faith- that the people involved will lie. So I don't think your counter-counter-argument holds much water, either. And I'm not sure you're even strictly correct- having the employees testify against the argument would hurt, but I could still see Twitter being able to prove they were coerced, or at least try.
I guess the main question is, are we having a legal or moral conversation? Because when you're discussing law- which I think is the vastly more important aspect here- these aren't technicalities. I don't believe there's a thing called "the spirit of the First Amendment". There's just the First Amendment, and how the courts have enforced it and are likely to continue enforcing it. I don't think it would be a 1A violation if he did it in office- in fact, Taibbi's thread says the Trump admin did the same thing, and I don't think that's a 1A violation (legally) either.
Do you understand that if it is a First Amendment violation (which I don't think it is), the party with standing to sue over it would be Twitter, who has not claimed they were coerced/forced by the government and has not sued or announced intention to?
There are people up and down this thread claiming this is a 1A violation. Parent's sentiment may just be a conceptual one but I am much more concerned with the legal aspect, and everyone understanding that correctly.
1- Biden wasn't in government, he was running for office. Private citizen at the time.
2- They weren't telling, they were asking, and if Twitter feels like they were told, they can sue the government for violating their First Amendment rights.
Thank you for posting this. Very interesting read on one of my favorite authors. People are complicated, which is a theme his works explore a good deal.
Their "app store" is online [0] and you can actually review the source code for all of the apps on it by clicking the github icon on each entry, here's one for example [1]
I bought into the Bangle.js 2 Kickstarter and I have to say, I'm incredibly happy with it. Granted, I've done nothing with it besides design my own watch face and take advantage of the GPS to set the time occasionally, but I know it's capable of a lot more. It was very easy to write the watch face code, and I feel like it would be pretty easy to do whatever I wanted to do. Ecosystem for it is probably a bit more developed than it was at launch, too- they were supposed to follow up with some apps that made interfacing it with your phone easier, dunno where that ended up.
To be fair- I've also got PineTime bookmarked for if my Bangle.js 2 ever breaks, or I just want to mess around with some lower-level aspects of watch firmware.
We're reading the responses to that stack exchange question pretty differently if your last line is your takeaway...in my opinion it would be extremely unlikely for a court to rule against "Big Tech" in this case.
If the government had forced the private companies to comply, it would be the private companies who had standing to sue, not the end parties who are currently suing, I would imagine.
I am pretty sure that your second sentence is not true. The government can ask private companies to censor in my understanding. The private companies do not have to comply, but if they wish to, they can. Why do you think it is illegal to ask? Can you back that up?
I'm confused about how these AGs even have standing. If the government is coercing Big Tech into censoring for them, wouldn't Big Tech be the party whose 1st Amendment rights were violated? And if Big Tech was not coerced, how can it be claimed that this is anything but their current 1st Amendment right to perform this censorship?
Why would I not agree with people or organizations choosing the price they sell their products and services for? Outside of discriminatory practices (and I don't consider price differentiation to be discriminatory) or emergency scenarios (gouging for gas in a hurricane for example) I don't find lowering or raising prices on what is unquestionably entertainment to be immoral in any way. Why do you?
I don't think there's a difference there. If there are no GPUs available for MSRP and dozens or hundreds available for 2-3x MSRP, the price is 2-3x MSRP. Whether it's day one or day N, the price is what you can buy it for that day.
What's the price of a GPU- the MSRP or the current bid for the only one available on eBay? In my opinion, it's the value I can actually buy the thing for.
The article definitely discusses COVID because it is a big driver behind this drop in life expectancy but it also talks about other causes of death that have increased in frequency that contributed to this change, and other causes of death that have actually decreased in frequency (but not enough to offset). Overall I found this to be a good article. I don't see how the title can be clickbait if it it contains an interesting data point that is expanded upon well in the article.
Do you think Kanye's claims that Hollywood Jews have placed child actors in his home to sexualize his children will stand the test of time and be shown to have value?
In my opinion there's no real discussion to be had on the things he is saying recently, so dismissing them as the rantings of a mentally ill man is the most charitable thing to do. If he's not mentally ill, then he's an extremely ill-informed anti-Semite who either believes outlandish things or pretends to for engagement.