See: 1st Amendment to US Constitution

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where does the road paved with evil intentions go?

The judges consulted; this internet win stands.

To the bank, apparently

Same road but with shortcuts.

I think we have an accepted fallacy in logic where we apply: Assume ignorance before malice.

I do agree ignorance is far more probable than malice, but malicious people are incredibly skilled at exploitation of ignorance and they use that skill without missing a beat.

Here's a small selection of comments by you related to free speech/free expression. Why the different view now?

------------------------------------

> Level Four: “We’re the free speech platform without CSAM, infringement or hate speech!”

This is where you have to draw the line and say: "Nope, hate speech is too subjective. I disagree with what they are saying, but unless it's against the law I will defend their right to say it"

The freedom to say mildly offensive things on Twitter without getting punished by the state?

-----------------------------------

I personally like society better when free speech is a social courtesy extended to everyone by everyone, but... society's values change, and right now "harm reduction" is king.

-------------------------------------

What we really need is a legal designation of a "public square" online that protects free speech online

------------------------------------

>and when in doubt, lean towards individual freedom over society's view of something.

I think this is the right stance.

------------------------------------

We can build a society where free speech isn't technically dead because you won't go to prison for saying stuff, but it sort of is dead because your speech is auto-censored by algorithms to make sure you adhere to approved speech. Is this a healthy society?

------------------------------------

*the above are all comments by uwin, if there is an '>' it means a quote from another user

1) The user you are trying so hard to catch in some contradiction seems to be arguing against the control large platforms have to effectively police speech into a box more narrow than the law, and (looking only at the provided snippets) does not seem to claim that the law can't or shouldn't provide some boundaries itself. Like, I don't know this user's opinion on whether truth in advertising laws are legitimate, only about whether it makes sense for Twitter / Facebook to be the ones who get to make the decision. In this case, they are asking why it isn't illegal, not why it isn't randomly being self-limited by the Internet-age speech carriers.

2) Even if the user quoted were "inconsistent" in that way--and because of #1 I don't think it is, but I want to note why I think your comment isn't as smart as you are hoping it is in more detail--one could easily take the comment to be born out of frustration at a world that decides lots of things should be forbidden but somehow not this one, whether coming from a place of sincerity or simply sarcasm: in a world where somehow there are a ton of things people can't say, why can they say this? A lot of times, I see people try to point out hypocrisy in online communication and in fact the two parties are just talking past each other, using the other's attempt to call out hypocrisy as a way to judge their position, ignoring that there are easier explanations.

> If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP?

It depends on what the goal is.

If one seeks an opportunity to punish the NAACP or to chill discussion of racism, focusing just on the NAACP might be a way to do that.

Otherwise, if one seeks to end harmful astroturfing[1], then directing punishment (eg: press+fines) at the companies/lobbyists that craft those campaigns seems more effective.

As for the non-profits that get duped by bad-faith corporate campaigns, being held up as a hapless corporate stooge should provide all the aversion anyone could want.

[1] ref: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/