I know I say “I don’t protect you from Twitter” a lot, and that a lot of people (idiots, mostly) are bothered by that, but it is said in defense of First Amendment rights.
A few points:
A few points:
1. I provide accurate statements of the law so people can learn about 1A rights.
2. I do this even when I don’t agree with the way in which someone is using their 1A rights. For example, I inform people that hate speech is protected, even though I don’t agree with the content.
2. I do this even when I don’t agree with the way in which someone is using their 1A rights. For example, I inform people that hate speech is protected, even though I don’t agree with the content.
3. This goes for Twitter’s decisions to moderate content, too. It is protected, and I will continue to point that out even if I don’t agree with any particular decision by Twitter.
4. This is in support of First Amendment rights because the people who ignore or don’t know the law are only one breath away from suggesting a law that would violate someone’s First Amendment rights.
5. This isn’t some weird, unlikely fantasy—states are actively exploiting people’s misunderstanding of First Amendment rights to attempt to violate others’ First Amendment rights.
6. So when people think I protect you from Twitter and that Twitter is violating me, they suggest and support laws that actually violate me by using the government to regulate someone’s speech.
7. It should go without saying that if you support violating one party’s First Amendment rights in order to increase the amount of speech from other people with whom you agree politically, you don’t actually care about First Amendment rights.
8. So I will continue to repeat my mantra, not because I like it when companies restrict speech, not because I dislike First Amendment rights, but because I like actual First Amendment rights, not fake ones, and education is one way to protect the real rights.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
