AKATSUKI CYBER TEAM@ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz ngl the Post Guild should consider a 1A lawsuit as Elon provided no reason to ban her.
Steven T. Dennis@91toph @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz The First Amendment doesn't apply to private media companies. That's why they don't have to publish your letter to the editor.
@steventdennis @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz Sure, but Alex Berenson can still get back his Twitter account by suing Twitter using the 1A as an argument. If Twitter doesn't want to bother to face a lawsuit by Alex Berenson of all people, I doubt they'd maintain Taylor's ban out of similar fears.
Bo Laurent@91toph @steventdennis @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz
1A does not apply. Twitter is not the federal government.
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.
@91toph @steventdennis @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz
Twitter settled & it wasn’t because of 1A. Judge didn’t accept 1A claim; J allowed case to proceed based on breach of contract (because of promises made by a Twitter exec in email).
“Internet-service executives have always been instructed by lawyers not to talk with people about their individual accounts and not to make any promises about what might happen, Goldman said, “for reasons that should now be obvious.””
Morten Kjeldgaard@steventdennis @91toph @taylorlorenz @ariegoldshlager Sure, but media companies as a rule don’t have problems with regular debate. The thing is, Twitter is no longer a media company, it’s the plaything and megaphone of a childish, narcissistic billionaire.
Sören@91toph @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz Elon banning her is upsetting and stupid, and arguably problematic due to Twitter’s outsized influence, but whether Elon needs a “reason” to ban anyone is a more complicated question. 1A surely doesn’t apply.
@chucker @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz But like i've said, Alex Berenson can get away with it using The 1A as grounds for a lawsuit to reinstate his Twitter account.
sam@91toph @chucker @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz AB didn’t win based on a 1A argument. He won because he had received private guarantees by twitter employees that he wouldn’t get banned. It was functionally a contract argument.
@verysimple @91toph @chucker @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz
And it wasn’t an email from just any employee. It was an email from a VP with apparent authority to make agreements.
@IMH @91toph @chucker @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz exactly. He may have couched his rhetoric about it in 1A/free speech language, but that wasn’t the basis of his actual legal argument.
mathew@chucker @taylorlorenz @91toph @ariegoldshlager In America you can file a lawsuit claiming anything, no matter how spurious. The First Amendment absolutely does not constrain private entities — just read the damn thing — and the only reason a First Amendment lawsuit against a corporation might work is that they might give in to avoid having to waste money on lawyers to fight it.
@taylorlorenz @chucker @ariegoldshlager @91toph Elon is burning over a billion dollars a year to ruin Twitter, so I’m pretty sure he’d spend $10k more on lawyers to “own the libs”.
@91toph @chucker @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz
Berenson got back on Twitter not because of 1A but because of promise made in email by a VP with apparent authority to bind corp which probably encouraged a settlement.
Comrade Weez@91toph 1A doesn't bind anyone but the US govt. 'Congress shall make no law...' @ariegoldshlager @taylorlorenz