Free speech is an idea, not an amendment.
If you censor opposing political views, you are antithetical to the concept and idea of free speech and you should be condemned.
You might find the first three to be subjective, and I wouldn't entirely disagree with that, so how about the lies and false information? Should a person in a position of power be permitted to lie to people to sway their opinion? I would have no problem if Twitter were to fact-check Trump's (or anyone else wielding such power) tweets and delete or somehow diminish those that are outright lies, assuming there were checks on such a thing to avoid politicization of that fact checking.
Yes.
If you don't like it, then you can counter the speech that you disagree with, using speech of your own.
Let the marketplace of ideas sort it out.
I can read the facts and read competing opinions and then come to a conclusion on my own about who I agree with.
I do not need some gatekeeper deciding for me what I should believe.
The value of allowing "lies", is that you don't have gatekeepers or censors deciding for you about what you should believe.
Furthermore, for what reason would you trust such a person?
If you already distrust Trump will you trust him more if some nameless moderator will decide which posts are okay and which aren't?
Besides, he's the POTUS and he has a lot of money, if twitter will start messing with his posts he can easily set up a service on his own.
And will also be selectively enforced, as we've seen on basically every single social media platform today.
That's what they do.
> They shouldnt be deciding whats right or wrong based on their personal opinion.
Well, they could, but they don't and as such they are bigger free speech advocates than you are because you want to restrict what they can do on their website, which is a privately run entity and as such not subject to 'free speech' laws.