It is no secret that Twitter (Facebook AND Google) has been censoring Conservatives, Independents, and Libertarians under the guise that they are private entities and have the right to decide who can use their sites and who cannot.
The extent of Twitter and Facebook’s purging of non-Progressives are sending up red flags as to the Constitutionality of such actions. Where does free speech begin and where does it end?
Enter the Supreme Court.
Washington Examiner by Mark Grabowski
During a Feb. 27 hearing involving the constitutionality of a state social media law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that Twitter and Facebook had become, and even surpassed, the public square as a place for discussion and debate.
“Their utility and the extent of their coverage are greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of public square,” he said while hearing arguments in Packingham v. North Carolina.
“Their utility and the extent of their coverage are greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of public square,” he said while hearing arguments in Packingham v. North Carolina. A majority of justices agreed[…]
The case being discussed is Lester Gerard Packingham v. North Carolina, a free speech case. SCOTUS is deciding on “whether North Carolina may bar registered sex offenders from using social media.”
As such, if government violates one’s free speech by blocking their access social media then shouldn’t it be the same for social media, in this instance, Twitter?
Justice Ruth Ginsburg stated that “restricting social media access is dangerous because ‘these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”