My reading of their comments was that they were wingnut-fishing — that they don’t hold such a view either, but were interested in seeing who did. (Or who would say they did, per Cleek’s Law.)
I don’t know if Josh Hawley has an account here, but I think he’d come down on that side. https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1347327743004995585?s=21
It’s not a debate; it’s not a violation.
You brought down the entire internet? Kudos! 
Anyway, I agree this isn’t a debate. But it IS a question: “who thinks social media’s recent bannings are first amendment violations?”
And the answer is: Trump-enabling imbeciles like Josh Hawley. When a publisher bailed on their book deal with Hawley, after he proved himself to be an ignorant Trump-enabling moron, Hawley threatened to sue, calling the action “Orwellian” and “an assault on the First Amendment”.
And as I said in another thread, Hawley clearly doesn’t understand what “Orwellian” means or what George Orwell wrote about, clearly doesn’t understand the rights and prerogatives of private businesses, and clearly is completely clueless about what the First Amendment actually says.
Despite this, the Federalist Society describes Hawley thusly:
Recognized as such by whom? His parents?
I suspect that’s a misquote, and what was actually said was that “Senator Hawley [was] recognized BY one of the nation’s leading constitutional lawyers.” That is, one of the nation’s leading constitutional lawyers saw Hawley on the street and recognized him by his distinctive equine features, and later told his friends, “I saw that driveling imbecile Hawley on the street today. He was easy to recognize – all he needed was a bridle, and he could pass for a horse, no questions asked.”
isn’t it? Isn’t this the exact thing that the first amendment protects?
ISTM that this IS a first amendment issue. The media are exercising their rights guaranteed by that law. The POTUS cannot demand that media publish his words because the first amendment exists.
Then debate it, please.
Lets not go down the No True Scotsman rabbit hole.
If anyone here thinks it is a 1st Ad issue, let them speak up and defend their idea.
BtW- it is not a 1st Ad issue.
I just did.
You are actually arguing that- in the context of the OP- that it is Not.
Argumentum ad populum.
I said that it is a first amendment issue, not a first amendment violation. When Don Jr claims that it is unfair that daddy was banned from Twitter, I say that the first amendment allows them to do so.
Yeah, we know. That is pretty much what we are all saying. What makes it a debate is somebody popping up and making the case for the opposing view.
So, no debate to date.
Here are two people who do:
I’m in no way a legal expert, but the government threatening big tech to make them carry out censorship that the government is constitutionally prohibited from doing, would violate the spirit of the 1st Amendment.
It is not technically a first amendment issue. But it is conceivably a violation of a principle that the first amendment is designed to protect. As MEBuckner suggests, it’s an oligarchy issue: we’ve let tech companies get jaw-droppingly enormous, to the extent that they have more control over communications than any entity ought to have. No company’s deplatforming should have as much impact on speech as Twitter’s or Facebook’s.
That said, the solution is to engage in anti-monopoly actions that are content-neutral, and to continue to allow companies to decide whose speech they’ll willing to amplify.
It might be, yes. IF that was what was happening here. But the WSJ article’s attempt to equate that principle with Facebook and Twitter banning Trump’s relentless incitements to violence is one of the most mendacious pieces of deliberate misrepresentation I’ve ever seen from a major news outlet.
What’s happening here is the exact opposite of that. Facebook and Twitter are responsibly exercising their legitimate right to prohibit harmful speech and to suspend users who repeatedly make false and inflammatory statements and incite violence. Twitter did not do so lightly. They let Trump rant and lie for many years, and only when things became truly extreme did they act. And now, exactly and diametrically opposed to the claims in that article, Trump is said to be plotting his usual petty vengeance against them for blocking his tirades, using the full power of the government to do so.
Wait…20+ years of “ No Shirt, No shoes, No Service!”, has been acceptable, nary an issue, but NOW it turns out it was unconstitutional?
What about, “You must be this tall to ride the roller coaster!”? And dress codes at fancy restaurants?
Maybe news agencies should pick up where the education system has failed, and spend a couple of days hammering home EXACTLY what is and ISN’T protected.
They’d be doing everybody a big favour.
So, the argument is that Congress threatened to rein in these companies if they didn’t do something on their own, so it really is an act of Congress.
It then goes on to say our founders couldn’t have possibly foretold the growth of this fourth branch of government… Ignoring that the founders were pretty damn aware of the power of the press, and Twitter, etc., is really just a modern version of the press.
It would have been a better argument if they said that our founders were blind to the problems with monopolies. But that wouldn’t fit the style of worshipping our founding fathers.
Wrong.
The 1st is specifically so that the Government or the President can’t order the media to publish or not publish things.
Various media have chosen not to let him speak on their platform. Trump wants to force them to publish his speeches, and he can’t.
That is not against the spirit of the law, it’s the entire reason for the law.
Not only is it not a violation of the 1A but we need more of this. We’ve allowed outright lies and misinformation to fester to the point of becoming an infection that can kill. And look, sooner or later, someone is coming to come and say something like “The way to combat bad information is with good information!” And in an ideal world, they would be correct. However, in the real world, all I can say is “How’s that going?” Due to the filter bubble effect [1] people do not see the good information, so the bad information becomes perpetually reinforcing. Consider the kind of madness we’re seeing right now due to misinformation:
And so on. The vast majority of the people who hold positions like the ones above cannot easily have their minds changed just by presenting them with new and correct facts [2]. The attempted coup on January 6th is just the latest repercussion of being overly tolerant to obvious lies. While I support free speech as an ideal, there has to be a balance.
[1] Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review , 34 (3), 150-160.
[2] Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason . Harvard University Press.