[csunbird]

Question to people from U.S. or familiar with U.S. law:

Isn't the government pressuring a private company to remove/censor a content violation of "Freedom of speech"? As a private company, Twitter can do whatever they want, but if Twitter is forced to remove and censor, wouldn't that be a violation?

[Wohlf]

The US Constitution doesn't apply to Twitter operations in India.

[Hamuko]

The government of India probably doesn't give a shit about Twitter's First Amendment rights.

[NotEvil]

If US govt does that. Sure other countries govt just write the laws so it's legal to do taht

[mattbrewsbytes]

US First Amendment:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It prohibits Congress from restricting the press or individuals to speak freely via laws that Congress writes. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with Corporations restricting things in their purview. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to any social media or online commentary by people. It might apply to the "press" since online news is more pervasive than physical newspapers. What would be interesting is a clearer definition of press as it relates to social media accounts.

[reedjosh]

The title is: Twitter sees jump in govt demands to remove content of journalists

> The 1st amendment has nothing to do with Corporations restricting things

Sure, but it has everything to do with a corporation taking instruction from the government to restrict free speech.

[ufmace]

"Freedom of speech" is a political and philosophical principle. It doesn't mean the exact literal text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and absolutely nothing else. It's going to ring rather hollow to everyone to gleefully censor your political opponents and then say that it's not technically censorship since it doesn't violate the First Amendment.

[mattbrewsbytes]

The parent to my comment was asking about law and specifically about violation of the law. Laws are about specific text and wordings in documents, who can create the laws and how they are interpreted by others (US courts).

I never said the philosophical idea about freedom of speech was only limited to 1st amendment, just my interpretation of the law as the commenter was asking (IANAL).

I believe there should be an independent (as in outside the company) review process for bans/reinstatement - something standardized across various social media platforms, maybe per country jurisdiction if necessary. That is an ideal whose implementation would be extremely hard.