Twitter suspends account tracking Maxwell trial

1) Everyone agreed that there was no chance of the presence of petitioners implied that they were endorsed by the shopping center. This is key: Pruneyard's speech isn't being impacted, so such a law isn't infringing Pruneyard's rights. This does NOT hold true for social media--the reputation of even the largest social media sites is driven by the content posted on them, which means any restrictions on sites' ability to regulate their own posted content necessarily infringes those sites' rights.

2) The California state constitution has a stronger guarantee than the US constitution, and the right of the protestors to set up a table was only granted by the former and not the latter. But this is only permissible so long as it doesn't infringe the US constitutional rights, which, see the first point.

There is no text in the constitution protecting abortions either, yet we have the Roe v Wade result.

Here was the finding: "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion. This right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Texas law making it a crime to procure an abortion violated this right."

I'm sure any rational observer can infer that the result stretches the definition of the wording to reach that conclusion. I am not anti-choice, just pointing out how loose of an interpretation can be used to reach a result.

It's pretty clear to me that if we enter a world where 95% of communication runs through a handful of companies, that right to free speech is meaningless without protections also against sufficiently sized/impactful organizations. There's certainly a way to reach that conclusion using the current text.

A conclusion could be that the government is infringing on the rights to free speech by not adequately protecting the public from large private entities. That's a pretty easy to reason and grasp result.

Let's revisit this comment in a few years. Pretty confident it will play out this way, especially given the current makeup of the court.

I mean seriously consider the news that has come out in the last few years.

Trumps "Russian collusion" - oops it turns out that this was actually literally manufactured by his political opponents in tandem with the intelligence community.

A virus which obviously leaked from a bioweapons lab - no don't notice that, what are you a racist?

Jeffrey Epstein - just blatantly assassinated while he was in prison. Cameras go off for a few minutes, and come back on with him dead. This is called a "suicide" by all of the trusted journalists.

Joe Biden's kids laptop gets leaked/stolen/whatever and is full of obviously damning information about a yet-unelected political candidate. Claims are that it's fake, that it's Russian disinformation, and thankfully twitter and facebook come along and ban any discussion of this, then demand that the newspaper which broke the story make a public declaration and apology for that apostasy - oops just kidding it actually turns out that the laptop was legitimate this entire time, and oh by the way that same kid will just blatantly, in your face sell his "artwork" to people for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then oops those people end up with positions in our government.

And now this. A journalist covering a story about a person who was selling the ability to rape young girls which she was trafficking to our political elites is banned from twitter for the coverage. Oh and also there is somehow apparently almost no coverage of this story on any of the nations major news outlets. CTRL-F "epstein" on cnn, msnbc, fox news, and nytimes comes up with 1 result for a book that one of the victims wrote.

This is so, so, so far beyond anything that I could have imagined 10 years ago. We're completely lost, and the people who are supposed to be helping us find our way out seem to be the ones that set us off course to begin with. It is existentially horrifying to me.

---

I think it's obvious what a horrible detriment twitter (mostly twitter, imo), facebook, and reddit have become to our society. The scary thing is that they're the journalists at this point. So imagine it's the 1960s, and the cigarette companies are not only the ones selling the cancerous product, but they also have the ability to unperson anybody who suggests that the product is bad for you. I'm really not sure how to solve this, aside from completely unplugging from society. The problem there is that when you do unplug from society, what you'll find are extremists. It's the same effect as voat, parler, gettr, gab, etc. They're the dissident free speech bastions, but what that means is that they're full of people who have been exiled from polite society. That is not an abyss I want to stare into for too long.