Hacker News Reader

Comment by adolph | Hacker News Reader

12 points·adolph··7 comments

> "In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less," the judges wrote.

That sure is an interesting statement in light of this weeks events.

All speech is not equal:

reproducible findings > peer review

peer review > reasoned debate

reasoned debate > evidence

evidence > facts

facts > principles

principles > opinion

opinion > lies

lies > cult propaganda

What level are politicians at now?

So what does this mean in the context of other things?

Can users block other users as long as they are not politicians?

Can politicians report/flag tweets to have them removed?

Can companies do the same to eliminate negative tweets about their brand?

Can companies/politicians pay for positive tweets to make up for negative tweets?

Genuinely interested, since I am not a lawyer.

If a politician can't block people because it is considered official communication, how can Twitter block politician's official communication?

Because it is privately owned. That officials choose to use such a channel for official communications is their responsibility.

From my humble understanding of all of this - Trump was acting as POTUS when blocked people, while Twitter acted as a private company.

You just answered that in your own question :)

Trump is an elected official in the executive branch, and therefore not allowed to restrict the speech of citizens.

Twitter is not an elected official in the executive branch, and therefore is allowed to block people when they see fit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com