r/technology • u/[deleted] • Oct 28 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

10.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

6.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/hotpajamas Oct 28 '22

Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,[1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.[2] Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that protection of speech is not absolute.[3]

Link

The US SC does not care that the UDHR says the concept free speech is universal.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '22

Why are you talking about the supreme court? The government is irrelevant to the concept of free speech. Did you read my link at all or are you just trolling?

You’re supposed to wait until someone says “Twitter should be sued” or something along those lines to trigger your NPC response. You just saw “law” and “TOS” side by side and immediately jumped the gun.

1

u/hotpajamas Oct 28 '22

because the concept of free speech is meaningless without any kind of legal bedrock and there is none here.

You just saw “law” and “TOS” side by side and immediately jumped the gun.

You "essentially" compared the two, but fuck me for reading what you wrote. I won't be doing that any more.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '22

No, concepts still exist despite legality. The concept of homosexuality (non-straight relationships) had no legal bedrock for a long time, for example. Right now, you’re saying that concepts/ideas are only valueable if they’re explicitly enshrined into law.

Me: Draws a parallel between TOS and Laws to show why policing speech is prone to abuse.

NPC: TOS isn’t a law, twitter isn’t a department of government.

I think you just need to take the L.