i enjoy how fucked up ur rationale is tho, that if a private company wants to pass its own laws, that that somehow bypasses the us constitution?
r u fukin dense?
In US Corporate law there is such a thing as “Corporate Personality”, which grants corporations the status of being their own person with a “legal personality” separate even from the individual capitalists and workers within the corporation.
As such, corporations themselves are protected by the First Amendment of the US constitution, allowing them their own freedom of speech. If Twitter does not wish to exercise this right in line with the speech of one of its users, it doesn’t have to. In just the same way, one person cannot force a second person to speak for them in line with the freedom of speech of the first person, if the second person doesn’t want to. The freedom of speech of the second person must be respected, leaving the first person the only option of finding their own free means of speaking.
So yeah, Twitter’s freedom of speech is perfectly in line with the US constitution when they don’t want their users saying certain things in line with Twitter’s freedom of speech.
The user is free to find any way to speak that they like, that doesn’t violate the freedom of speech of any other persons.
If a user insists on using Twitter to express themselves in a way that Twitter doesn’t want to express itself, then it’s actually the user who is violating the First Amendment rights of another person. Trump would thereby be violating the First Amendment of the US constitution according to your argument. Nice job.
So yeah, “how dum r u tho?”
“r u fuckin dense?”
It will never occur to you that it’s all you who is the problem here, will it.
Did any of you realize The Body Snatchers movie plot?
Allowing the monopolies involving public communication was, in fact, Unconstitutional even though US Congress had allowed it (US Congress often makes unconstitutional laws that have to be challenged and aborted).
The intent of the US Constitution overrides US Congressional statutes.
Oh, ok, that justifies censoring the President of the United States, who is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
You’re brilliant, just like smears, the two of you belong together.
“Corporate Personality” is above The Law of the Land. Genius.
I’m pretty sure I need to add sarcasm here otherwise this response would fly over your head.
To any others making stupid arguments, like Sil and smears just did, I want you to explain yourself how Twitter, or any private corporation, has a law-making and law-enforcing ability above that of Congress.
Go ahead, I could use some comedy this morning. Make me laugh.
Oh, it’s not my law or my argument.
The Supreme Court ruled this.
Feel free to laugh at them, I’m just a messenger telling you what happened in the real world. I know you like to think that anything that doesn’t confirm with your wishes is corrupted, so I guess you’ll just be disregarding the Supreme Court on these lines.
But yeah, the First Amendment gives Twitter free speech rights, and even a US president can’t make Twitter say what they want them to say if Twitter doesn’t want to say it. That’s the First Amendment right of Twitter as a “Corporate Personality”, and Corporate Personality isn’t “above” the law - it IS the law. If you don’t like it, don’t take it up with me - take it up with the Supreme Court. I’m sure your legal expertise will make you their top priority.
Nice mental hula-hoops, but you’re wrong.
The First Amendment protects private Citizens before any other apparatus, especially before a business or corporation, and the US President is the First Citizen of the country.
But you’re too simple to know anything basic about Civics or Civil Liberties.
It’s obvious that you’re not an American.
Thank fuck for that haha 
Fortunately I live in a much freer country.
Oh really?
Tell me, which exact part of the following says so:
I need your expertise, Urwrongx1000, only you can save me from missing the words of this amendment that have anything whatsoever to do with anything you just said. Save me!
bro congress shall make no law. it means that congress cant make a law that abridges the freedom of speech. twitter rules are not laws. u can make rules for ur living room. u can kick democrats out of your living room for saying things that u dont like. when u kick them out, they can go to a public park down the street and keep on saying their democrat stuff.
do u not have any respect for private property? do u think that u should just be allowed on someone’s property and that u can tell them to fuck off, and if they kick u out of their yard that the constitution is violated by that?
dude if u r not trolling right now then u r legit the dumbest motherfucker on earth
no one said that. r u confused about what a law is?
corporations r not above the law, just becuz u believe they r
ur dum
there is no law that says they must give anyone any platform. congress shall make no law that abridges your freedom of speech, and they haven’t.
internet is a public space, not a private domain, times have changed
corporations shall make no law prohibiting speech either
corporations are not above congress
laws haven’t tho
they have not made any laws no one knows what u r talking about bruh
i am coming to ur house and im going to sit in your living room and read the communist manifesto out loud and if u do not let me then u r censoring me and that is unconstitutional and u r violating me free speech since u r not above congress.
The global data-wars have begun… who can own/have access to what data… who’s moving their entire data stores where… which platforms are looking to be banned in which countries.