CNN lawyer-resource-persons” label as “publicity stunt” Trump lawsuit against Facebook, Google, Twitter, for being “cancelled”

i agree with what the CNN legal resource persons (lawyers) said, the constitutional proscription against censorship (prior restraint) applies only to the State (i.e., government or government agencies) as distinguished from private entities. What Facebook and Twitter did in “cancelling” Trump’s accounts is a performance or execution of their “Terms of Use” or terms of contract. If you view it from the perspective of content, others would call it editorial prerogative. However, as editorial prerogative, for me, the better policy is to rate the content (e. g. “this statement requires fact-checking”, “this is not verified”, “this is not consistent with actual events”, removing individual posts and tweets that incite to violence or are racist, misogynist, or are forms of hate speech — stating the reasons why they were removed). Second, why weren’t Facebook and Twitter doing this (“cancelling” him) when he was President? Is it an offshoot of one being out-of-power? i.e., their exercise of the editorial prerogative (enforcing the “Terms of Use”) , in this case, was a function of who was and who are in power.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.