Comment by satysin
5 years ago
This is very interesting to watch unfold in real-time.
I find it fascinating the President of the United States is ranting about 1st Amendment violations with regards to a private business. Pretty sure there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that says he is guaranteed the right to tweet.
I hope Twitter takes this a step further the next time he violates their ToS and gives his account a 48 hour suspension.
I understand why Trump is picking this fight but I can't help but feel Twitter hold the power. Sure Trump has been a big driving factor in Twitter really hitting mainstream but I would be surprised if he was still adding huge value to the platform. If anything banning Trump would be the biggest thing to ever happen to Twitter as he wouldn't let it go.
However I can't see a way for Trump to win such a fight. It could go all the way to the SCOTUS but if they sided against Twitter it would affect literally every big social media platform in the US which I can't see happening.
Zooming all the way out I don't see why Twitter really care about such a fight as there is no way Google and Facebook (to name just two) would let things go against Twitter as it would be devastating to them as well.
With free speech it gets interesting how you interpret it. One interpretation, which I think Trump is using, is that "laws come last". There is a principle that says free speech should be protected and laws only come to cover the cases where the principle can be infringed. So twitter, in this interpretation, would be correct according to current law, but would stand on the wrong side with regards to a higher value of upholding the principle.
However there is another interpretation which says that ability to remove someone from your private business is also an expression of free speech. And that private companies as well as individuals are free to choose who they do business with. But there is one nuance here - this is better served under another principle which is "freedom of association". Freedom of association states that you can refuse to deal with anyone you don't like. However in USA this principle recently lost its value after certain group of Christians were not allowed to refuse baking a cake for a gay couple. So it seems there are certain protections.
But then there is a third thing which is that in some countries (and I am not sure here about USA) the president has the right to send a message using any media channel he sees fit, and the media channel cannot refuse. Informing and communicating with the public is one of president's duties and refusing to send his message infringes upon it. If USA has such a law and if Twitter could be interpreted as a media platform then it could be against the law for Twitter to do what it is currently doing. Unlikely thou, as twitter has a team of lawers and likely they were consulted beforehand.
> Zooming all the way out I don't see why Twitter really care about such a fight
Companies are ran by people and those people take political sides. Twitter is on the democratic party side, and the election season is coming. I predict we will se a bigger coordinated effort spanning Google, Youtube, and Twitter, and some other big corporations as we get closer to USA president election date.
Thank you for your insights.
> But then there is a third thing which is that in some countries (and I am not sure here about USA) the president has the right to send a message using any media channel he sees fit, and the media channel cannot refuse. Informing and communicating with the public is one of president's duties and refusing to send his message infringes upon it. If USA has such a law and if Twitter could be interpreted as a media platform then it could be against the law for Twitter to do what it is currently doing. Unlikely thou, as twitter has a team of lawers and likely they were consulted beforehand.
I looked into what powers the President of the US has in regards to sending a message and from what I found there are only specific rules (not sure if they are laws) for TV and radio to broadcast Presidential messages unaltered when asked.
Even if one was to interpret those rules to include the internet as well surely that would fall onto ISPs in that they must give unrestricted access to government services such as whitehose.gov rather than giving the President unlimited power of literally any US-based website?
I am sure if Twitter bans Trump's account he would push forward that he has unlimited power to communicate via any website he pleases although I have no idea how that would play out in the courts. It certainly goes against the small government position the Republican party talk about for businesses.
> Companies are ran by people and those people take political sides. Twitter is on the democratic party side, and the election season is coming. I predict we will se a bigger coordinated effort spanning Google, Youtube, and Twitter, and some other big corporations as we get closer to USA president election date.
I also think this. Seems Facebook has picked their side with Trump.
Me thinks Twitter has been planning for this outcome for a while now which is why they have held off on banning his account. I wouldn't be surprised if they take the step to ban him sometime in the not too distant future.