Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby
The key part of your sentence is in bold above.
This is no different than a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.
When you sign up to use their platform, you agree to use it by their rules. If it was a government office putting limits on Trump's free speech, then we'd have an issue.
|
Its a bit for complicated imo.
A bakery or a hotel is "open to the public" and under interstate commerce clause and civil rights laws, a store "open to the general public" cannot discriminate or deny service based on race, religion, gender etc. A bakery open to the public is clearly subject to federal laws and regulations regarding constitutional rights. (whether "sexual identity" is a protected class is up for debate and how that parlays with religious freedom is the difficult issue with the bakery cases)
Twitter - what the hell is it? Its obviously not a brick and mortar motel in Florida. Perhaps it could be regulated if it is considered a publicly necessary utility like railroads were back in the day or like energy or water etc.
Just a few years ago, the FCC labeled the "internet" as a public utility and thus subject to federal regulations. Without reading up on it, i think they really wanted to regulate the wires/towers etc i.e. the ability to provide internet.
I just dont see how "twitter" can be considered a public utility. Posting your thoughts arent vital and necessary to society. There are many other platforms to post your thoughts so its not like this is a monopoly as compared to Cox/verizon owning all the fiber cables in a certain part of the country.
----------------------
Twitter can do what ever it wants and thinks is in the best interest of its company and shareholders, imo.