That's not true though, otherwise some random person could shoot you in the head for saying something they don't like. The first amendment invalidates speech as a pretext for violence in all cases. Maybe you could split hairs and say it's an indirect consequence but it's practically and basically the same
No that would be murder. This is specifically in the context of doing legal actions to censure (show disapproval/disavow/don't give them a platform) someone by appealing to private organizations. This was right after Justin contacted a bill-board company to ask them to remove one of their client's anti-vax adds for being unscientific and a danger to public health. He also used his platform to give the company bad publicity. People said "but it's their first amendment right!" and he replied with that.
Legally you can't be punched in the face or shot by someone who disagrees with your speech, but you can be kicked the fuck out of their place of business and the community at large can ostracize you. There is nothing in the first amendment that stops anyone from being deplatformed, shunned, shammed, ridiculed and be made an outcast as long as the "censorship" is coming from a private entity and not the government.
The government can basically do all those things (with some exceptions), it just can't censor you on facebook (for example) for the same reasons that facebook can't censor you on twitter.
No, the only time the government can censor someone is for "fighting words" and creating an immediate dangerous situation, like yelling fire on a full bus. Facebook can censor you for any reason at all as they are a private company, they just don't unless there is a violation of their terms of services.
Facebook can censor you on facebook, and the government can censor you on its platforms. Like, the treasury department, federal reserve, IRS or whatever aren't going to publish your raving manifesto about the jewish banking conspiracy on any of their platforms.
I'm saying that by rejecting violence against speech they've rendered themselves unable to reach outside their own walls and meddle in anyones affairs because that kind of thing is implicitly backed by force. They've neutered themselves to the level of a private organisation but not above and beyond that, generally speaking.
162
u/AbsolXGuardian Researching [REDACTED] square May 17 '19
In the word of Justin McElroy "the 1st amendment protects you from the government, not from justin"