The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.
I fail to see how Twitter acts on behalf of government officials.
The meaning of it has been "stretched" a bit (at least from the pov of a textualist/originalist) to constitutionally justify civil rights laws applied to individuals/businesses, not just state governments.
So it's "true meaning" is often debated, but as I understand it:
If civil rights laws can be/ are interpreted to apply to individuals and businesses via the 14th (which they are), it's hard to also square that diversity of political opinion is not also protected, given that it's the ultimate civil right and we're a democratic-republic.
From wiki: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
Ok, I'm not a constitutional attorney but this doesn't make sense to me at all.
Where does Twitter fit in exactly? As a.. 'state'? As 'the law'? As a 'person' (because it's a corporation)?
Also, we're not talking about political diversity here. Unless the diversity involves inciting violence. Nobody wants to censor conservatives. But I would wager that plotting to execute the vice president crosses a line wrt to political diversity. Apple doesn't want the app down because it's full of non-SJWs but to probably avoid liability if they end up using the app to coordinate an attack.
Honestly, it doesn't make much logical sense, especially to someone reading the text of the constitution with the expectation of understanding it...
but they really wanted a way to make civil rights laws happen. 2nd order effects, good case results in bad caselaw, etc.
The net effect is that constitutional protections originally meant only to apply to the federal government have, one at a time, over many years, been ruled as being applicable to both States and private businesses. To the point where it's presumed that most/all federal rights/protections should be applied this way. With guns being a currently battled sort-of exception.
(Similarly, read the text of the 8th amendment, and try to figure out the bridges crossed to result in Roe v Wade)
Twitter fits in as a business, at least in this context, for the sake of this particular argument. (As opposed to those who want to classify it as a utility, or "public square," etc)
Some people get upset at it, but the easy comparison is they're the modern version of the 1960's lunch counter or bus company, but instead of skin color, it's political opinion (or sometimes even religious beliefs, depending on the specific topic of discussion).
The fire in a theatre cliche isn't really true. There isn't really a broad "incitement" exception to freedom of speech / 1A.
It's an out of context/misunderstood quote from an old case. (And I want to say it wasn't even in a majority opinion, or something similar, that made it mostly irrelevant anyway.)
Part of the reason being, no one can agree on what "incite" legally means. Which makes it a political question, in itself.
People hear what they want to hear. I personally don't understand how anyone thinks that speech was inciting violence, unless they presume to think he meant something other than what he said.
That's trying to mind read, not a legal standard.
Basically, I disagree: it is a matter of political diversity.
Even discussing the merits of executing someone, be it deathrow inmates or politicians. But the standards of trying to judge what's a dog whistle is a criminal matter, not a censorship one.
Now, I'm not saying all speech, no matter what, should be left up in all circumstances.
I am saying there needs to be a presumption of good intention, and lacking some form of legal process (a la evictions), platforms should not be able to take pre-emptive actions without meaningful consequences.
Perhaps it should when those platforms develop monopoly levels of control over distribution.