Pressure would be a First Amendment violation. Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.

What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure? Shouldn’t the government not be pressuring people in pursuit of limiting free speech whether the current recipients of the pressure happen to be of the same political persuasion or not?

Otherwise what happens when the party in power changes?

"What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure?" Then it's not pressure. It's Twitter doing something they want to do. Just because the government and Twitter agree on something doesn't mean the government "forced them" to do it, which is what the 1A and prior restraint law care about.

"What happens when the party in power changes?" Twitter, like every other company, gets to decide whether or not they want to support or oppose the party in power, and if Twitter feels the government is violating their 1A rights, Twitter can sue them

> Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.'

You do understand that they can collude? It's funny we have spent countless hours hearing about Trump Russia collusion. Now suddenly people can't seem to figure out there is a thing called collusion.

Censorship of this story doesn't exist in vaccum. There is a legitimate argument why this shouldn't be investigated as election interference when we've spent countless hours based on Steele dossier, which turned out to be a political ploy.

For collusion to be noteworthy there still has to be a crime committed. The allegation in the Trump-Russia collusion case is that they conspired to have foreign operators influence the election. This would have been an illegal act that they colluded on.

There is nothing illegal about requesting review of tweets even through special channels. If Twitter actually has evidence of an illegal act to coerce the review then they should probably rehire whoever was coerced and file suit.

Collusion with a foreign adversary regarding illegally obtained internal comms from your political opponent: NBD

Collusion with a domestically owned bird app re revenge porn of your crackhead son: Worst scandal in US history

Got it.

Collusion as you're using it would not be a 1A violation. It also would not qualify as election interference any more than any other newspaper choosing what stories to run or what candidates to endorse (legally speaking).

"Your honor, I have not proof that I was actually pressured in any way but I felt that way."

They haven't even claimed they were!