# Jared Taylor v. Twitter (1st Amendment case) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179 "2018-06-15T23:12:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2018, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/1 "2018-06-15T23:12:24Z")
[Today](https://apnews.com/70cffc6c7de54ef5a555a1c59df619f9/Lawsuit-over-white-nationalist's-Twitter-ban-clears-hurdle) San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn ruled in Jared Taylor’s favor during a hearing Thursday on Twitter’s request to dismiss. Dismiss what, many are asking? > [@](#): > > a lawsuit that accuses Twitter of violating the free speech rights of a leading white nationalist figure by banning his social media account. 😕 I know, I was too. Keep reading: > [@](#): > > The judge described Taylor’s case as a “classic public interest lawsuit” and said it “goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution,” according to a transcript of the hearing. > > “Now, it may be speech that you and I don’t wish to enjoy, but that’s not germane to the determination of whether it’s public interest. Public interest doesn’t have a flavor of ideology to it; public interest is whether it benefits the public,” Kahn said. What in the ever-loving…? > [@](#): > > Company attorney Patrick Carome argued that platforms like Twitter have a First Amendment editorial right to choose what kind of content to distribute. > > “And a book store, or a newspaper editor, or a cable platform has a First Amendment right to make good, bad, horrible decisions about who and who does not get to speak on its platform and what content does and does not get to be on its platform,” he said. > > The judge asked Carome if he was arguing Twitter has an “absolute First Amendment right” to remove anybody from its platform, including on the basis of their religion or gender. > > “Twitter doesn’t do that,” Carome responded, “but that is what the First Amendment guarantees to First Amendment actors.” I agree with Mr. Carome and think it’s weird that he’d have to explain that to a SC Judge, but I’m not an official law-talking guy so maybe it’s not that weird. But the argument put forth by Mr. Taylor’s law-talking guys also seems weird to me: > [@](#): > > Taylor’s lawyers argue access to Twitter is “essential for meaningful participation in modern-day American democracy.” > > “At all times, Mr. Taylor has expressed his views with respect and civility,” they wrote in a court filing. “At no time did Mr. Taylor or American Renaissance engage in insults, threats, or harassment, nor did they ever encourage anyone else to engage in such activity.” > [@](#): > > Taylor’s attorneys said the new policy against affiliations with violent extremist groups is “overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory.” Judge Kahn at least thinks this is a legitimate enough argument for the court proceedings to continue, but I’ll be ddamned if I can figure out why this wasn’t immediately tossed out of court; it seems completely unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/2 "2018-06-15T23:44:19Z")
It’s America. In America everybody demands the right to hurt his neighbours because rights. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/3 "2018-06-16T01:16:05Z")
Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn’t and couldn’t exist. They should not be allowed to censor. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/4 "2018-06-16T01:35:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn’t and couldn’t exist. They should not be allowed to censor. Care to try the same logic on this board, which uses the same resources? Example: I was warned here once for insulting someone directly. The moderator was right, I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/channing_idaho_banks/32/250_2.png) [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Channing_Idaho_Banks)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/5 "2018-06-16T01:38:34Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn’t and couldn’t exist. They should not be allowed to censor. :smack: The government is not censoring Twitter, they’re censoring their own platform, which they are responsible for. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/6 "2018-06-16T01:56:31Z")
I can’t see this as a free speech issue at all. Twitter is a private company and can censor anyone they feel like for any reason whatsoever. I guarantee you if I go on some places like [/r/The\_Donald](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/) on Reddit and say anything remotely liberal they will ban me in a heartbeat. And that’s fine as far as the law goes and I will not be suing them over it. This is no different. I am amazed this judge is so far off base (unless I am missing something). This is high school level civics stuff. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/7 "2018-06-16T01:57:18Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Care to try the same logic on this board, which uses the same resources? > > Example: I was warned here once for insulting someone directly. The moderator was right, I was wrong. That is not a matter of public interest. Rules and your agreement to abide by them is not censorship. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/8 "2018-06-16T01:58:26Z")
> [@Channing\_Idaho\_Banks](#): > > :smack: > The government is not censoring Twitter, they’re censoring their own platform, which they are responsible for. They exist because the government enables them. It is in the public interest to prevent censorship by those using public resources. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/9 "2018-06-16T02:05:13Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > They exist because the government enables them. It is in the public interest to prevent censorship by those using public resources. What public resources are they using? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/10 "2018-06-16T02:17:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What public resources are they using? … > [@TriPolar](#): > > Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn’t and couldn’t exist. They should not be allowed to censor. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/11 "2018-06-16T02:26:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > That is not a matter of public interest. Rules and your agreement to abide by them is not censorship. Twitter has rules too. Zero difference. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/12 "2018-06-16T02:30:27Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > … You quoted your own post as a cite? The airwaves they are using are owned by Verizon and AT&T and Sprint and so on who purchased the spectrum from the government for cell phone use. You and I pay our cell providers for use of those airwaves. They are not broadcasters and we do not get the signals for free like broadcast TV so they are not regulated. The internet is also not a public resource. It is all privately owned and we pay for its use. Same as cable TV (which is why cable TV is able to offer nudity and violence and whatnot that broadcast TV cannot). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/13 "2018-06-16T02:34:18Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Twitter has rules too. Zero difference. Twitter is a communication system provider, the Dope is not. The situation is the equivalent of an ISP not allowing the Dope to operate because they don’t like what Cecil, or Ed, or you or I believe in even though the Dope has not violated any rules of the internet. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/14 "2018-06-16T02:41:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You quoted your own post as a cite? It is not a cite. You asked a question that I had already provided an answer to. > [@](#): > > The airwaves they are using are owned by Verizon and AT&T and Sprint and so on who purchased the spectrum from the government for cell phone use. > > You and I pay our cell providers for use of those airwaves. > > They are not broadcasters and we do not get the signals for free like broadcast TV so they are not regulated. > > The internet is also not a public resource. It is all privately owned and we pay for its use. Same as cable TV (which is why cable TV is able to offer nudity and violence and whatnot that broadcast TV cannot). There are not unlimited airwaves. You may not consider these things to be public resources, maybe the law doesn’t either, but I help pay for them and I do. If twitter wants to buy all of the land to run cable to your twitting device without using eminent domain or public airwaves for people to say “I’m tweeting now”, then they can censor anything they want. But they didn’t do that, they couldn’t possibly do that and have enough users to make it worthwhile at the price they would have to charge. There’s another more important principle here, I may not like what you say, I may hate what you say, I may hate you, but I will defend with my life your right to say your loathsome speech. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom, without it none of our rights can be maintained. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/15 "2018-06-16T02:42:35Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Twitter is a communication system provider, the Dope is not. The situation is the equivalent of an ISP not allowing the Dope to operate because they don’t like what Cecil, or Ed, or you or I believe in even though the Dope has not violated any rules of the internet. Twitter is not an ISP. Twitter is not a public utility either. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/16 "2018-06-16T02:49:49Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It is not a cite. You asked a question that I had already provided an answer to. > > There are not unlimited airwaves. You may not consider these things to be public resources, maybe the law doesn’t either, but I help pay for them and I do. If twitter wants to buy all of the land to run cable to your twitting device without using eminent domain or public airwaves for people to say “I’m tweeting now”, then they can censor anything they want. But they didn’t do that, they couldn’t possibly do that and have enough users to make it worthwhile at the price they would have to charge. > > There’s another more important principle here, I may not like what you say, I may hate what you say, I may hate you, but I will defend with my life your right to say > your loathsome speech. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom, without it none of our rights can be maintained. Free speech is more important to you than staying alive? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/17 "2018-06-16T02:50:26Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > There are not unlimited airwaves. You may not consider these things to be public resources, maybe the law doesn’t either, but I help pay for them and I do. If twitter wants to buy all of the land to run cable to your twitting device without using eminent domain or public airwaves for people to say “I’m tweeting now”, then they can censor anything they want. But they didn’t do that, they couldn’t possibly do that and have enough users to make it worthwhile at the price they would have to charge. > > There’s another more important principle here, I may not like what you say, I may hate what you say, I may hate you, but I will defend with my life your right to say > your loathsome speech. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom, without it none of our rights can be maintained. As I noted Twitter is not broadcasting. Verizon and AT&T and their like buy radio spectrum for cell phone use. You rent use of that spectrum. They are not broadcasting to the public. They are broadcasting to their subscribers. They are agnostic (at least so far) about what content you request and is sent to you via the cell network. That or you are renting a hard wired pipe to your house from an ISP. Again not public, akin to cable TV so not regulated as a public resource. And as for your last bit ONLY the government can deny you your first amendment rights. Twitter can’t. The SDMB can’t. Reddit can’t. Breitbart can’t. YouTube can’t. Take your pick. They can all censor you on their own platform at a whim for any or no reason whatsoever. None are required to carry your or anyone else’s message. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/18 "2018-06-16T02:58:23Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Free speech is more important to you than staying alive? Yes. And it has been to others. That’s why we have it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/19 "2018-06-16T03:02:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As I noted Twitter is not broadcasting. > > Verizon and AT&T and their like buy radio spectrum for cell phone use. You rent use of that spectrum. They are not broadcasting to the public. They are broadcasting to their subscribers. They are agnostic (at least so far) about what content you request and is sent to you via the cell network. > > That or you are renting a hard wired pipe to your house from an ISP. Again not public, akin to cable TV so not regulated as a public resource. > > And as for your last bit ONLY the government can deny you your first amendment rights. Twitter can’t. The SDMB can’t. Reddit can’t. Breitbart can’t. YouTube can’t. Take your pick. They can all censor you on their own platform at a whim for any or no reason whatsoever. None are required to carry your or anyone else’s message. If any of what you say is well accepted I still disagree with it. The government has the right to regulate all of these services in the public interest. The government can regulate services using no pubic resources if it is in the public interest. Neither you nor I decide these things, they have to be decided through the courts when they come into question. I have given my opinion on the subject, I think the judge should stand up to your kind of reasoning, and apparently he has. I sincerely doubt this will make it through the process and that Nazi asshole will be censored. You’ll change your mind on the subject once your right to free speech is taken away. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2018, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179/20 "2018-06-16T03:05:24Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > Free speech is more important to you than staying alive? > [@TriPolar](#): > > Yes. And it has been to others. That’s why we have it. OK, that makes sense. What do you think is supposed to happen if my freedom of speech risks killing you? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jared-taylor-v-twitter-1st-amendment-case/816179.md?page=2)