The private company argument was used back in the civil rights movement too, it was an excuse.

Society banned private companies denying services in law to promote a better and acceptable society.

Sadly, just to re-implement it again under the same old tired argument, it's a private company...

It's not fooling anyone who is being honest, this is just banning people you don't like.

Political group is the new religious group, banning the groups you don't like shouldn't be acceptable in modern society.

I don't think this is the same old tired argument.

Political groups are not a protected class in the United States, and for good reason. Political affiliation is not an inherent quality of a person. People's political affiliation can, and does, change.

Marjorie Taylor Green had her Twitter account terminated for breaching a written contract between her and Twitter. Her Twitter account was not terminated because she is a Republican, or because she's a woman, or because she's white, or because she's over 40, or because she's heterosexual.

During the civil rights movement, people were denied service because of the color of their skin. This didn't happen to Marjorie Taylor Green.

Politics encompasses everything. And people can switch religion too. So thats not really an argument protected rights are finite and not subject to change.

Also, Lets not pretend politics isn't the reason companies are banning and denying service to people.

They clearly banned her for her right leaning politics, and used terms like "misinformation". Its clearly forcing their politics onto the public by not allowing counter views, the politics that do include race, religion, and other aspects of life.

Civil rights like openly protesting for the opposite political party is indeed being squashed.

This is the same excuse thats used to silence preachers/priests who talk politics, as if the 2 are not the same.

Civil rights is politics. California knew this when they added political association to protected classes.

I would remind you that vaccine hesitancy, vaccine skepticism, and vaccine avoidance are not the sole property of the American political right. To this point, Twitter also banned Naomi Wolf. Google it if you're not familiar. Instagram banned RFK Jr. Google that as well if you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/05/naomi-wolf-ban...

< Its clearly forcing their politics onto the public by not allowing counter views, the politics that do include race, religion, and other aspects of life.

Marjorie Taylor Green posted provably false misinformation about vaccines, in clear violation of Twitters terms of service. She entered into a binding contract when she signed up for her Twitter account, and Twitter found a suitable remedy. She breached the contract and they terminated her account.

But never mind private companies. Society does not have to accommodate toxic, antisocial "counter views" in the interest of "fair and balanced". There is nothing "fair and balanced" about lies, and there aren't two sides to every debate. It's very convenient to cry censorship, but where is your call for personal responsibility on the part of Ms. Green?

< They clearly banned her for her right leaning politics, and used terms like "misinformation".

I would be interested in proof that her account was terminated for her right leaning politics.

Good point, while the right is more outspoken about mandates the left does occasionally get banned for it.

But to say her view is toxic, would be picking sides. Her posting CDC links is pretty far from toxic.

That seems pretty much targeted for her politics.

Thousands and thousand of politicians and others are on Twitter with politics similar to Greene, and they aren't banned. It would be pretty easy for them to just ban whoever has politics that they don't like.

They banned her because she was spreading information that they deemed harmful.

Looking at this thread - no, no we are not. Doomed to repeat until eternity it seems.