If your bank account statement was publicly available would it be though? Because that's where they are getting the flight records they are rebroadcasting.
Elon’s flight records are public, but the account aggregated them and made them available to the public in a different form.
A better example would be: a Twitter account reports your position when you are in a public space every five minutes, including pictures of you at the bar, jogging, on a date at a restaurant, etc…
All of these are public informations, but the way they are aggregated amounts to stalking in my opinion.
No, free speech just means that the government does not restrict your speech, it has nothing to do with what a private corporation does. Twitter can censor anything it wants and it does not impede free speech at all.
Your are mixing up the first amendment with the broader idea of free speech.
The 1A (roughly speaking) limits the scope of the Government as not too limit free speech.
Twitter, as a private company, is not restricted by the first amendment. However, one can note that Twitter does not allow free speech.
This is quite important from a legal standpoint, because since Twitter practices censorship of ideas they don’t like, they are no longer considered a common carrier.
No, I am not mixing up anything. The broader idea of free speech is just an idea, it has no legal basis. The only legal basis is the first amendment. The only Justice that seems to think common carrier applies to twitter at all is Thomas and his neutrality appears to be very suspect at best. Twitter was never a common carrier, the Trumps Right wing simply wants to paint it as one. I think it appears you are misunderstanding what a common carrier is, if they are not a common carrier, they have no requirement to enforce free speech. Twitter is not and has never been one.
Free speech is a very well defined concept, as done by literally hundreds of political science scholars. The fact that the US Constitution applies it only to the Government does not mean it cannot be discussed in a different context. For instance I would like new regulations to extend free speech outside the scope of the First Amendment. This is an extremely well defined politica stance.
You seem to agree that Twitter is NOT a common carrier, and then it must be treated as an editor. This would imply that they are responsible for the tweet they decide to publish.
These are exactly the far-reaching legal ramifications of free speech (outside Government) that I was mentioning.
What you are discussing in regards to free speech is again, by your admission, just a concept, not a law. All that matters is the law. Until its made law it has no bearing on the actions of a company. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act means that whether you want to call them an editor or whatever, legally they are not responsible. The law is the law until it is changed, everything else is just an opinion.
A better example would be: a Twitter account reports your position when you are in a public space every five minutes, including pictures of you at the bar, jogging, on a date at a restaurant, etc…
All of these are public informations, but the way they are aggregated amounts to stalking in my opinion.
I admit this is very borderline, tough!