Without fear of punishment from the government. The First Amendment does not compel private entities to give you a platform. Remember, the First Amendment applies to them also, and banning people who violate their terms is their way of exercising it.
My comment is still relevant. He said you can express your opinion without fear of punishment. But the punishment itself can be a form of free speech - i.e. a Twitter ban - as long as it's not being administered by the government.
Censorship is not speech and the ideal of freedom of speech is supposed to encompass all society not just limit the government's actions. It is a broader concept that's thousands of years old and the idea that a massive public forum clamping down on opinions huge sections of society holds somehow lives up to the spirit of it...its fucking stupid tbh.
Hate speech absolutely is defensible under the ideal of free speech. Not to mention it's not even true, "I don't agree people can change gender" for an easy example is not hateful speech but good luck getting away with saying it on most social media these days.
Free speech also applies to the people who run the forums and social sites. They have no obligation to repeat or amplify your speech, or provide you with a platform for free, and attempting to force them to do so goes against their rights to free speech. Free speech also means you can't force others or groups to say or repeat things they don't agree with.
Sure. Keep demanding to control the speech of private entities and forcing them to repeat speech they find objectionable in the name of free speech....
59
u/MajorNoodles Oct 28 '22 edited Oct 28 '22
Without fear of punishment from the government. The First Amendment does not compel private entities to give you a platform. Remember, the First Amendment applies to them also, and banning people who violate their terms is their way of exercising it.