For the first paragraph under quote, that's interesting. It's still a bit hazy for me to tell if this is obviously violating the Twitter's rules but I'm not frustrated if the reasoning was against something very likely to be creating a high risk similar to open crowds during a pandemic.
For the reaction under the second quote, you're right for the most part (hate speech and maybe a couple of other topics are a bit hazy) on the property thing, other than that, I was mainly trying to say that even if a company can censor a legally protected speech, it would still fit the definition of censorship, which isn't even the same as saying "My rights are violated.". I think there are some video game censorship that are silly and somewhat debatable, but I'm not saying my rights are violated.
When I was stating what censorship was, I was mainly referring to the mere definition of it. A company can legally stop a lot of lawful speech, despite that, it's still censorship if it fits the definition of censorship.
Perhaps the reason why I was concerned was because of the main debate of banning people for having a political opinion.
=Disclaimer, same person, just recently made an account.=
I'm not accusing Twitter as violating the first amendment as I think the meaning of censorship is a bit more broad. Though I was using "free speech" a lot if I'm remembering correctly but I don't think I was saying that Twitter banning any lawful speech is a violation of the first amendment.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
For the first paragraph under quote, that's interesting. It's still a bit hazy for me to tell if this is obviously violating the Twitter's rules but I'm not frustrated if the reasoning was against something very likely to be creating a high risk similar to open crowds during a pandemic.
For the reaction under the second quote, you're right for the most part (hate speech and maybe a couple of other topics are a bit hazy) on the property thing, other than that, I was mainly trying to say that even if a company can censor a legally protected speech, it would still fit the definition of censorship, which isn't even the same as saying "My rights are violated.". I think there are some video game censorship that are silly and somewhat debatable, but I'm not saying my rights are violated.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Re:
lawful political opinion I mean.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
When I was stating what censorship was, I was mainly referring to the mere definition of it. A company can legally stop a lot of lawful speech, despite that, it's still censorship if it fits the definition of censorship.
Perhaps the reason why I was concerned was because of the main debate of banning people for having a political opinion.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
=Disclaimer, same person, just recently made an account.=
I'm not accusing Twitter as violating the first amendment as I think the meaning of censorship is a bit more broad. Though I was using "free speech" a lot if I'm remembering correctly but I don't think I was saying that Twitter banning any lawful speech is a violation of the first amendment.
Next >>