Twitter Files: Rep. Adam Schiff's office requested tech giant to suspend accounts

SGT (Join to see) :

Keith, I couldn’t agree more. So where was the angry energy when trump was doing his own brand of Twitter censorship?

SGT (Join to see) blocking users is completely and totally different from banning them. This is the difference between the right and the left. The left keeps saying the right created cancel culture with their boycotts in the 80s.

When the right doesn't like something they block it for themselves and tell you it is bad so you should block it, too. But they still leave that choice to you. I.e. Trump blocks users from himself, but anyone else can subscribe, view, interact, etc.

When the left doesn't like something they not only want to block it from themselves, they want to block it from EVERYONE. I.e. banning people from Twitter or censoring their posts.

If Trump had asked Twitter to delete the accounts of the people he blocked, I would be just as upset. But that is not what he did. And you know it.

I didn’t state that that’s what trump did. But since you bring it up, he kinda sorta did that, too.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/7/17544344/donald-trump-twitter-bots-delete-your-account

Anyway, despite your stated differences in types of censorship (which isn’t entirely accurate), is one version really better than the other? Generally, censorship is wrong. So I suppose my original question still stands. So where was the angry energy when trump was doing his own brand of Twitter censorship?

I also noticed that he was able to (poorly) paraphrase what is being repeated "out there" but did not once quote the 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I wonder what "abridging the freedom of speech" actually means?! Actively directing multiple companies as to which accounts to mute/ban and which not?

1. There is no such thing as hate speech. It is a made up thing by bureaucrats in an attempt to find ways of circumventing the 1st Amendment. Free speech is not free if we can slap a label on it and write laws against it. Truly free speech includes the things we don't like. Even the things that we find morally objectionable.

2. Freedom of speech means government cannot prevent speech. They cannot write laws preventing speech, but they ALSO cannot coerce private companies to prevent speech, either.

Third party doctrine REQUIRES voluntary (i.e. not coerced, not blackmailed, not bribed) participation. It also requires a bona fide third party. People rotating out of government into a leadership position, and then back in to government - only to be back-filled by another government agent - is not a truly independent third party. The Twitter files are showing that the participation was NOT voluntary. And that the claim of independent third party is dubious, as well.

Lawmakers calling on Twitter to block speech they do not like is still a violation of the 1st Amendment. Twitter doing it independently is not. Them doing it on behalf of the government is.