• saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 days ago

    It’s not. Free speech is to prevent a state encroaching on or involving themselves in the censorship of citizens.

    Social media operators can do what they want in terms of censorship. It’s their’s to censor and if someone doesn’t like it they may simply choose not to use it. It does not impact their wellbeing or freedoms within the state and is not a social service.

    Edit: So quite ironically, suggesting limitations on 1A is against the 1A. It is there to prevent limitations of freedoms by things the state may try to impose, should a state ever become corrupted.

    • jaybone@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 days ago

      Sadly platforms like Twitter or Facebook are almost requirements for some people to get their news, look for a job, communicate in general, etc. pretty soon you’ll need a Twitter account to vote in an election. When the oligarchs and monopolies have become the government by controlling politicians, some might argue certain constitutional protections might be required. Idk. Should be laws against employers asking for your social media info, or politicians posting on official accounts on those platforms. Maybe then we can separate the two and make the argument 1A does not apply there.