Elon Musk acquires Twitter

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Alright well all that being said in those posts, I think it's worth pointing out that free speech is a tenet that serves both individual protections as well as a formulated equilibrium of social policy that is somewhat in lieu of personal liberty.

General people are really good at championing free speech for the purpose of personal liberty, but aren't very familiar with the broader implications of social transparency which undoubtedly gets complicated when institutions have both public and private consideration.

[Frustration]

If twitter was held legally responsible for what people post it would have a real liberal bias pretty quickly.

Um... no.

Anyone repeating conservative talking points about why certain people should not be allowed to participate fully in society would be permabanned for hate speech in the first week.

Again, no. In American law, there is no definition of 'hate speech'.

See The Legalities of Hate Speech.

The issue is that Twitter says it's not liable for what people post on it - such as libel, which you can sue and collect for, or false information that can induce liability. But it also wants to restrict certain kinds of speech, to have the power to deny people from using their forum. It's trying to have things both ways.

[hammerofglass]

Frustration, are you arguing that Twitter should be nationalized? Because that argument only makes sense if Twitter is as not a private company.

Twitter's immunity comes from Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Their ability to moderate content is because the service is their yiffing property and they don't have to let you use it. That's capitalism, bay-bee.

[Frustration]

More from Lawfare Blog

It's not quite that simple.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think some people do think that outlawing hate speech is a liberal bias.

Those people kind of show their hand.

[Frustration]

The issue there is that there isn't a generally accepted definition of 'hate speech', and as such people use it to refer to any speech regarding human groupings they don't like.

As such, the phrase took on Orwellian overtones as soon as it was used.

[ProfessorDetective]

The issue there is that there isn't a generally accepted definition of 'hate speech', and as such people use it to refer to any speech regarding human groupings they don't like.

As such, the phrase took on Orwellian overtones as soon as it was used.

Well, bare minimum, trying to incite violence towards and/or discriminate against people for their genetic makeup, orientation, identity, and/or religious beliefs. You know, Classic Fascist behavior.

[Frustration]

Well, bare minimum, trying to incite violence towards and/or discriminate against people for their genetic makeup, orientation, identity, and/or religious beliefs.

"We must hunt and kill every last filthy Fascist!"

Is this hate speech, or not?

[ProfessorDetective]

Well, bare minimum, trying to incite violence towards and/or discriminate against people for their genetic makeup, orientation, identity, and/or religious beliefs.

"We must hunt and kill every last filthy Fascist!"

Is this hate speech, or not?

Right to the 'you must tolerate intolerance' whataboutism, them. All killing is murder, so self-defense is evil, right?

[Draco Dracul]

Well, bare minimum, trying to incite violence towards and/or discriminate against people for their genetic makeup, orientation, identity, and/or religious beliefs.

"We must hunt and kill every last filthy Fascist!"

Is this hate speech, or not?

No, it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to fascists.