It doesn’t matter is they work for them or not. They’ve agreed to the terms of service. The first amendment doesn’t apply.
You can’t pass a law that restricts a company’s right to set their own terms of service. That’s an unconstitutional restriction on private property and free association rights. Thats what communist countries do.
The only legal restrictions have to do with anti discrimination and public nuisance laws. I doubt this would qualify. Sorry.
For the love of God man, read carefully.
Section 230 is there for platforms such as Twitter and FB. It excludes them from prosecution under law because they are not liable for what their users say. Newspapers agencies, news agencies and the like do not get 230 protection since they are a publisher. See Lin Wood/Sandman lawsuit against msm.
Twitter, FB = platform = 230 protection
Mainstream media = publisher = no 230 protection
Still following me?
Twitter banned myself, Trump and thousands of others because they do not like what we have to say. None of us, to my knowledge, has broken any terms of service that Twitter has supplied. That is called a first amendment violation. Because Twitter is a platform and is protected by 230, I cannot prosecute under law. Do you see the issue with this? THEY BANNED US BECAUSE THEY DIDNT LIKE WHAT WE HAD TO SAY! No terms of service were violated. If no terms wereviolated and we got banned anyway, that is a violation of the first amendment.
As I, Trump and thousands of other conservative voices are being removed. The leader of Iran is calling for death to America and death to Jews. Those Tweets are in violation of Twitter’s TOS but yet they have not removed the tweet or banned the account. Now why in the hell do you think that is Buca? Think critically here.
When Twitter and FB thought it would be a great idea to put disclaimers on the tweets or posts of the people they don’t agree with, they are altering the posts. Because the user does not give them the right to do so, they now enter the publishing world and should be treated as so.
Now, section 230 is a subsidy that we the people have given big tech. When you coordinate an attack on another company to have them removed because they don’t play the same game as big tech and users moving to said platform, then these companies are not only violating the first amendment of the said company but also the users that use that service since big tech doesn’t want to allow users such as myself to express my opinion.
This isn’t hard