This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What if Trump told Twitter that something should be removed because it violates Twitter's terms of service, but Twitter's terms of service are vague enough that almost anything could be said to violate or not violate it? And what if the government told Twitter to remove something under similar circumstances?
In these hypotheticals, Trump WAS the government; he is subject to the First Amendment only when he is a government official acting in the capacity thereof. So the answer would be the same in both cases. Today, as a private citizen, he is free to block whomever he wishes, so there is no need for him to ask Twitter to do it: "President Trump established his account, with the handle @realDonaldTrump, (the "Account") in March 2009. No one disputes that before he became President the Account was a purely private one or that once he leaves office the Account will presumably revert to its private status." Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, 231 (2d Cir. 2019).
The point is that "telling Twitter that it violates their terms of service" and "telling Twitter to get rid of something I disagree with" are identical, because Twitter's terms of service are vague enough that you can point to something you don't like and plausibly claim it violates Twitter's terms of service. So I don't see how you can distinguish between the government doing one and the government doing the other.
Even assuming that Twitter's rules of service are in fact that vague, which they do not seem to be, as I and others have pointed out many times, courts are not morons, and you are very unlikely to have hit upon a loophole that no one has thought of before. It has been the law for a good 80 years that vague rules which grant excessive discretion to silence speech are invalid, precisely because such rules can be "made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of views on national affairs." Hague v. C.I.O. 307 U.S. 496, 516 (1939). There are hundreds of cases on that issue.
Also, even if rules are not vague on their face, it is unconstitutional to enforce them in way which discriminates based on viewpoint. Eg: Hoye v. City of Oakland, 653 F.3d 835, 850-852 (9th Cir. 2011)[finding city enforced its facially valid "Bubble Ordinance" around abortion clinics in an impermissible manner by permitting individuals to approach another to offer help in accessing an abortion but forbidding approaching to discourage abortion].
In this scenario, it's Twitter which is enforcing the rules arbitrarily. Twitter will remove posts when the government says "this violates your terms of service", but only if in addition to being a government request, it fits Twitter's ideology. (Yet without the government request, Twitter wouldn't remove the posts.)
Is this wrong?
Wasn't the assumption that the government is in cahoots with Twitter, and that they were taking advantage of the vague rules as a cover for viewpoint discrimination? If the decision to discriminate based on viewpoint is wholly that of Twitter, there probably is not a constitutional issue.
Why don't we deal with a more realistic example: Twitter prohibits tweets "praising, celebrating, or condoning" violence, including but not limited to "violent acts committed by civilians that resulted in death or serious physical injury, e.g., murders, mass shootings; attacks carried out by terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups (as defined by our terrorism and violent extremism policy); and violent events that targeted protected groups, e.g., the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide." Such tweets are, however, protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government cannot ban or punish such statements. Can they, however, notify Twitter when they find such a tweet? My understanding of current law is that merely doing that would not convert Twitter's subsequent removal of said tweets into state action within the ambit of the First Amendment. Note that I said that that is MY UNDERSTANDING OF CURRENT LAW, not MY PERSONAL POLICY PREFERENCE. Because my personal policy preference is the opposite, as I have stated.
Now, it is possible that there is case law that says that the govt cannot alert a private party when it knows that the private party will then act in a manner that would violate the Constitution were the govt to do the same thing, perhaps dating to the civil rights era, or perhaps in the context of the Fourth Amendment. But I don't know of any.
That is definitely not enough to convert Twitter's action into state action; the Supreme Court has held that "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State." Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link