[93736683628]

Holding people legally responsible for speech means censoring speech the Government doesn't like. Holding people legally responsible for relaying other people's speech as long as they don't relay all speech, is essentially the same thing as banning the selective relaying of speech. For example, it would be impossible for Twitter to determine if any factual claim about a person or company would be considered defamation before they relay it, so they would essentially be forced to leave the US if they didn't want to relay genocide advocacy or whatever else they may have a moral objection to help spread.

That's what I find so frustrating about this debate. The people who claim to support free speech actually support more censorship by the Government. They seem to want the Government to be the sole judge of what is acceptable to say. That's the exact opposite of what I want. I want for nobody to be prevented from saying anything and for nobody to be forced to help anyone say anything. Both of those rights are equally important parts of freedom of speech.

[stale2002]

> That's what I find so frustrating about this debate. The people who claim to support free speech actually support more censorship by the Government.

You have mis-interpreted.

People are saying that they should be treated like the telephone companies.

Do you think that the telephone companies are some massive apparatis of censorship and anti-free speech?

I don't think most people would say that. I think that would people would say that the laws that force the telephone company to do certain things, results in very little censorship of the phone network.

> Both of those rights are equally important parts of freedom of speech.

So then, telephone companies.

Do you think that the laws regarding telephone companies are some massive infringement on free speech? Because I think most people would say the opposite, that are laws regarding them help prevent censorship.

[flyingcircus3]

Everyone claiming that Twitter and other social media companies are infringing on their free speech are arguing that these companies must allow broadcast messages.

Telephone companies do not allow normal customers to broadcast messages. A telephone call is a targeted communication. You are calling one person, or perhaps a handful of people. Additionally, there are laws that (at least attempt to) prevent spamming and robocalling. Telephone users also have the right to be taken off of companies call lists.

[stale2002]

> Telephone companies do not allow normal customers to broadcast messages. A telephone call is a targeted communication.

> there are laws that (at least attempt to) prevent spamming and robocalling. Telephone users also have the right to be taken off of companies call lists.

None of what you just said changes the idea that it is pretty silly to claim that these types of laws that force telephone companies to send certain messages are some huge infringement on free speech.

The laws that apply to phone companies are well accepted in society. And they could be expanded to other large communication networks, as they currently are well accepted and are not considered huge infringements on free speech, nor do people say that they support censorship.