[aaaaaaaaaaa10]

The Supreme Court has ruled that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict...the free flow of information and ideas.”

See the case here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-44.ZO.html

The full text: "The First Amendment's command that government not impede the freedom of speech does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict, through physical control of a critical pathway of communication, the free flow of information and ideas."

[akersten]

A ruling like that makes me even more surprised that the government did not take steps to maintain net neutrality. I would say ISPs are a far more "critical pathway of communication" than Twitter is.

Them taking steps to prevent Twitter from "restricting" information really doesn't follow with the approach this administration's FCC took with ISPs.

[gilbetron]

Twitter is expressing it's 1st amendment rights by labeling tweets. Twitter is not the government, Trump is. The situation is completely opposite what you make it.

[Reelin]

I don't agree with the executive order at all, but the person you responded to doesn't have the situation backwards.

People (such as yourself, and myself as it happens) will claim that this order violates the first amendment. However the Supreme Court has explicitly allowed such actions under very specific circumstances. One such circumstance was called out above.

So the question is: would the actions in this case constitute a step to prevent a private interest (ie Twitter) from restricting communication via control of a physical pathway?

[jboog]

How does fact-checking dishonest (or at the very least disingenuous) comments "restrict the free flow of information and ideas"?

The ideas still flow freely. Twitter isn't even forcing more accurate and factual information right next to the dishonest framing. You have to click the link to even see it.

This seems like world class straw-grasping.