> Secondly: Twitter is not "speech" but a newspaper that prints nothing but personals[1]. All day long. The owners make a decision every day to keep printing that newspaper with everything that's in it[2].
Third, that wasn't the government because Biden wasn't president at the time. Presidential campaigns are not the government.
…And fourth, all the posts they reported were Hunter's nudes, meaning the posts they were getting taken down were likely illegal already (under revenge porn laws) and certainly against ToS.
Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts is irrelevant in the case of an entity like Twitter due to the CDA. 47 USC section 230 C1: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Nonsense.
First of all, "government" is not an "in" or an "out". They represent their constituency; those are people, and in this case, they are the representatives of the workers at twitter (judging by the donations).
Secondly: Twitter is not "speech" but a newspaper that prints nothing but personals[1]. All day long. The owners make a decision every day to keep printing that newspaper with everything that's in it[2].
With that firmly in mind, let me tell you a story:
Once upon a time, the people working at that newspaper saw the people working at another newspaper do something to their estimation illegal and unethical[3], and decided to use the tool at their disposal to stop it. And management backed them. It happens.
Then a rich person who thought to their estimation it wasn't, bought the newspaper and set policy that the people working at the newspaper were not allowed to use their estimation of legality or ethics.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_advertisement
[2]: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/1...
[3]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/130/