Free speech isn't important because it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution because it's important. Sure, Twitter wouldn't be violating the law if they banned Trump, but they would absolutely be violating the more important ideal of free speech.

Because Twitter is a platform for the communication of others, they find themselves in an ironic situation: adhering to the principle of free speech means giving up, or at least severely restricting, their own ability to exercise that right. I think it would be noble of them to accept that restriction voluntarily, but it would be problematic if it were required of them.

Even if Twitter wanted to promote freedom of expression, there's an inherent contradiction between allowing others to express their opinion and them expressing their own opinion. I think someone whose promotion of freedom of expression involves denying themselves that same freedom is sending a mixed message. Because their support of the principle would have those reservations, they don't have an obligation to provide it.

Twitter has claimed in their own promotional material to support free expression, so it may be a bit disingenuous for you to suggest they may not want to promote free expression.

The Constitution while talking about ideal, talked about them in the context of the relationship between the government and its people. It was mostly about protecting the people from the government.

Currently basically facedesking at never coming up with this phrasing of it myself. Filed under "good enough that it's obvious as soon as you've seen it".

Thank you.

Also for almost everyone on Earth it's not "in the constitution" because we don't live in the US.

Actually it's in the Constitution because it's important for a different reason than most people think.

If you read the Bill of Rights carefully (and I mean thinking about the reasons behind them and their implications and interpretations over time, beyond what you see in school) you gradually come to realize that they were not meant to be declarations of your rights at all. (This is very much in contrast to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is such a thing.) Rather, they have been very much intended to be protections against the government, i.e. limitations on what the government can do.

This is not obvious, and it has nontrivial implications.

The 5th amendment is the clearest example of this, but this theme goes across all the amendments. The "right against self-incrimination" is not actually declaring a fundamental right. Ever think about why there would there be such a right? It's surely not the kind of thing I'd think of when writing a Constitution, and the same is probably true for you. Furthermore, if it's a right, then why does it go away once you are given immunity? And why doesn't it exist for other people (even those in your own family)? The reason that right exists is that they wanted to protect against torture, which was used to extract forced confessions, and they decided to grant this right to reach that goal. Otherwise, they did not by any means believe that it would be somehow wrong for a judge to compel you to produce testimony. That's why the right is so limited: it doesn't apply to testifying against other people, nor does it apply to yourself once you have immunity. Yet most people don't realize this and think it's there because it's somehow deemed to be a human right.

The same goes for the freedoms of speech, press, association, and the right to bear arms, etc... those are, again, meant to protect against common practices of oppressive governments. They are not declarations of intrinsic human rights. It's probably a somewhat radical departure from what you've learned, but I think it's worth realizing this. In particular, it implies even more strongly that the right to free speech was NOT imagined to be something that anyone but the government should worry about.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments were basically lifted directly from established English legislative and common law. That Americans were regularly denied the benefit of these laws was one of the primary grievances of the colonies, so they basically just copy+pasted them into the Bill of Rights.

As for the 1st amendment, I'm sure you've noticed that it's worded in the negative, and that's because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. States were free to oppress speech and enforce religious laws. And that they did, and few thought those states inherently oppressive. At the time it was thought that such laws restricting speech, enforcing a state religion, etc, if chosen democratically, were tolerable. Protection from the tyranny of the majority hadn't yet become the predominate way to understand these newly declared individual rights. Rather, what most concerned the convention members was that the federal government not have the power to interfere with the democratic balance struck at the state level. Nonetheless, the wording of various state constitutions make it clear that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc were considered as much an individual right as any other.

It's useful to understand that our modern notion of free speech as one of our most inviolable rights is _very_ recent. Oddly, it's perhaps one of the most recent innovations in American constitutional law, succeeded only by criminal procedural rights like Miranda rights. Until circa 1930, when Brandeis and Holmes kicked-off a reconceptualization of free speech, the right to free speech was understood much as it's still understood in Europe--highly qualified and subject to reasonable, democratically chosen restrictions. Before the modern era, states regularly (and legally) jailed abolitionists, unionists, communists, and others, simply for speaking in public or passing out literature; and not because they lacked a license, but for the actual content of their speech.

First, you say:

> It's about a belief that it's immoral to put someone under oath (to God) and pit himself against himself

and then you say

> It's about as close to a human right as you could find in that age

First, something being immoral doesn't imply that the opposite of it is a human right. Many people believe revenge is immoral but don't believe it to be a violation of their human rights. Not donating to charity might be immoral to many people but they wouldn't consider there to be a human right to take money from others. etc.

Second, we're not talking about English law either. These people were fleeing from English law and establishing their religious freedom. So it's fair to assume their biggest worry in the 5th amendment wasn't religion or God, but rather the government.

And third, your own source contradicts what you said. They clearly say courts relied on the the maxim (that “no man is bound to accuse himself”) as a protest against the unjust methods used to extract confessions. i.e., it wasn't that they viewed it as a human right in any sense, but that they began to invoke this maxim to avoid extracting forced (and hence potentially false) confessions. Which supports exactly what I said. (And note the use of "unjust" rather than "immoral" -- it's not about morality, but about administering justice. Religion and morality weren't new concepts then, and it's not like they avoided it initially due to moral reasons or suddenly avoided it due to feeling guilty.)

I don't have time to make a longer response to the rest of what you said, but the negative wording itself is further evidence that they were worried about government behavior and not trying to declare what is considered a fundamental human right (or trying to even "advisingly" prescribe good behavior for private individuals for that matter). I'm baffled at how you say things that align directly with this and then draw the opposite conclusions. If you're going to use the state constitutions as evidence, they're not going to be evidence for what the federal Constitution says. They can of course be evidence for what they themselves say, and nowhere do I argue that state constitutions do or don't declare anything as a fundamental right.

It is ideal for social media to be common carriers the same way the net should be neutral.

Even the "ideal" of free speech refers only to speech on public property outside of the control an organization. There is no ideal of free speech that says a) you should be able to say whatever you want on private property, or b) that organizations should sanction members for speech they do not approve of.

Twitter is well within the ideal of free speech should they choose to kick Donald Trump off their site, on the grounds of a) not liking what he uses their private property to say, and b) wanting to sanction him as a member (i.e. user) of their organization for what he says.

Of course, the ideal of free speech and what's written in the constitution are synonymous, as far as the American ideal of free speech is concerned. Different nations have different ideals.

Stopping speech because you dislike the speaker, or disagree with what's being said is the antithesis of this ideal.

Again, of course Twitter legally could ban Trump. Doing so would not be in keeping with the ideal of free speech.

So when people express outrage about Twitter restricting speech, it's the same emotion as RadioShack selling their customer list - not as advertised.

As for Trump, there is certainly a case for treating his account differently. He is the President of the United States. These aren’t the musings of someone who doesn’t matter. They are the thoughts, intentions, and announcements of the most powerful man in the world. In the same way that Twitter wouldn’t censor horrifying but true news, they shouldn’t censor the President. Anything that the President tweets is news.

Imagine if they banned him and he moved to another site. Would Twitter then ban people for reporting, on Twitter, what the President said?

> Our mission: Give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.

Give everyone. Not give people I agree with, or people I think are good -- everyone. It's an admirable, worthwhile goal. Whether they'll stick to it or not....

It doesn't mean that every single web platform or private place is supposed to tolerate or let you practice your free speech.

Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480

Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below:

1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations.

2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then.

3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but...

4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers.

Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me.

Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast.

I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).

I would really like to see your explanation for (4) given the constitution explicitly only gives the authority for a declaration of war to Congress (Article I, Section 8 in case you need the reference).

Regarding (1), if the president continues to bluff, then no nation can accurately gauge his or the US's intention. Continuing to threaten, but not seek out approval for, war only encourages NK (and others) behavior because they are increasingly confident he's all bark and no bite.

If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.

Much to my surprise I found out today that the first amendment does actually sometimes extend past the government to private companies. Here [0] is one case where the supreme court found it did, and here [1] is the reddit thread where this came up, about a lawsuit which (amongst other claims) argues that YouTube has managed to fall afoul of the first amendment.

I make no claim that the first amendment would plausibly expand to twitter in this case, I suspect not. I suspect that it would, at most, make it legal for Trump to violate the TOS and create a new account or something. I am not a lawyer, have not read all the relevant rulings, and am certainly not qualified to give legal advice on this.

[0] https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/ama...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/7abbas/prageru_sues_yo...

(In addition, I believe acts like picketing an employer are specifically protected by law.)

Yes, that was my interpretation as well (and goes toward my comment about it at most justifying violating the TOS).

> the company does not actually have full legal control of that land.

No... I don't think that that is a fair statement of the conclusion. The conclusion is rather that given that they have chosen to let their property be used as a public space the state can't apply the law it's power (i.e. enforce laws) in a way that would violate their right to speak (picket).

While there may be acts specifically protecting picketing (I don't know) the opinion doesn't seem to be about any such acts.

And no, Trump’s daily tweets aren’t hate speech. I think he’s an idiot, but he’s not spouting hate speech on there.

Meanwhile the extreme right has immense power. Mainstream politicians talk about prosecuting the press, carrying out mass murder and other war crimes to crush our enemies, and making law based on their ideas of religion.

I agree that we need diversity of political thought, but I see the problem as being in the opposite direction: there are almost no left-of-center voices being heard. Bernie Sanders is just about the only one, and he barely qualifies.

We currently have a center-right party and a batshit-right party. The latter isn't playing devil's advocate in any useful way, they're just attracting the crazy.

I actually think the more traditional Marxist view on identity politics is correct. It's toxic to leftism because it divides the working class.

The fact that one could gather a bunch of open communists and they'd be able to march in any major city in the US declaring their wishes to install Communism, and no one would have a problem with it should give you pause as to whether or not the "extreme left" has no voice. Rightfully we get quite irritated when the "extreme right" does that.

>We currently have a center-right party and a batshit-right party.

Seems like it's the exact opposite. A center-right party (the GOP) and a batshit-left party (The Democrats).

I really don’t get your characterization of the two parties. How is it center-right to talk about nuking terrorists or murdering their families in retribution? On the other side, if Democrats are batshit-left, why aren’t they talking about nationalizing industries, seizing farms from big landowners, or abolishing religion?

When have they called in for testimony people to ask if they have ever owned or read "Das kapital" and ruined their careers for refusing to cooperate.

Yet that's exactly what happened with Communists and Communism.

Equity of content isn't a practical goal. Any view can be split infinitely into sub-viewpoints. Diversity, in this context, cannot be enforced without setting limitations on discourse. All platforms (including reality, where proximity is a limitation) of speech suffer from this. Pragmatically, modal groupings form, appealing to human mental models. Humans choose to throw away diversity of political thought to focus on more immediate needs and goals. It's a borderline tautological statement that all human political activity is "dangerous" because humans are "dangerous".

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11...

I'm not convinced this is really what's going on. At least, not precisely.

The United States has become more progressively politically polarized over the last two or three decades: the left has gotten more left and the right has gotten more right. But the polarization hasn't been symmetrical over that period; the right has moved much farther to the right overall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=asymmetrical+political+polar...

I think what's happening now may be the left catching up, so to speak. The lesson of the modern Conservative Movement, for better or worse (I would say worse), is that polarization works. Demonizing your opponents--not merely disagreeing with their policy positions--well, it works. The enemy isn't a political philosophy. It isn't even an ideology. It's your fellow countrymen. And there will be no peace unless they are driven out or utterly disenfranchised.

And, as much as I'd like to blame my fellow travelers on the Left, I can't. A lot of the folks who get real shrill about the (so far largely theoretical) threat of Antifa are curiously silent about how Trump has emboldened some of the absolute worst tendencies in far-right American politics. Antifa is, arguably, a reaction to that.

I don't think resistance to fascism is a bad thing, either. (That's not to say that I advocate "punching Nazis," per se, but I think conservatives are correct in finding a right to self-defense that extends, if necessary, to violence.) But we're definitely seeing a much greater polarization happening on the left, a movement akin to the Tea Party. I don't know where this ends, but it doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.

I don't think anyone should take away a diversity of political thought. But I think taking away polarization and demonization would be terrific for the country. And I admit that, right now, having the President himself spending more time encouraging that polarization and demonization than he does running the country strikes me as a grave problem. I wouldn't explicitly encourage Twitter to replace Trump's login with a placeholder page reading "Don't you think you could spend a bit more time healing rifts than creating them, Mr. President?"...but you know what? I wouldn't censure them for it, either.

there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on both sides, but I doubt Twitter is going to actually unify people as much as polarise.

I don't think he should be banned, because he's actually quite tame as far as Twitter goes. Sure, his spleen-venting is probably doing real harm to the cultural and political climate of the country, but that is one of the reasons he was elected... brick through the window of the establishment and whatnot. But if he hasn't violated the terms of service, then he has as much of a right to pop off tweets as anyone else.

Can you elaborate on this? Playing devil's advocate is not inherently useful, in fact it can be extremely destructive.

For example playing devil's advocate on saying "hey, maybe slavery wasn't so bad" is at best a waste of time, but if you manage to convince anyone you've just made things worse. There is no value in that role.

Similarly suggesting that being a literal Nazi is "all sides are to blame, many sides" is destructive and not in the least bit a valuable role.

Trump, and the alt-right in general, is regularly in the destructive end of playing devil's advocate. What would you characterize as being useful in countering "extremism on the left"?

What's your evidence for this?

If we were talking about a right wing demagogue without real power like Steve Bannon, I might agree. But Donald Trump is actually the president. He is the commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth and he has nuclear weapons at his direct command. He can pardon any criminal in the US and can fire any member of the federal executive branch. The US department of justice reports to him. Twitter can't give him more power because he already has it. Doesn't blocking him from twitter simply mean that it is harder to incriminate or expose his thoughts and activities? IMO his tweets only undermine his power, they do not increase it.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/corporations-are-crac...

Trump switching to a different platform would instantly give the new platform millions of active users. A new competitor like that would make TWTR crash on the market.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-t...

It's funny to see how the Donald trump subreddit (who claim to have 6 million members), after sticking a link to a petition can only gather a couple of thousand votes. What makes you think millions of people will flood to Trumps soapbox?

This isn't true. SCOTUS has decided [0] that denying someone access to social media can be considered an infringement of the 1st amendment. Salient quote from the decision: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."

[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

Are there defamation or slander laws in the US? How does that reconcile with the First Amendment?