Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

:, FACEBAN?, Have they violated Trump's free speech?, CONCLUSION:,…

- - - - The freedom of speech is not absolute, but finds its limits in criminal laws and in other constitutionally protected rights (Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire 315 US 568, 62 S.Ct. 766 [1942], RAV v. City of St. Paul 505 US 377, 112 S.Ct. 2538 [1992], Winsconsin v. Mitchell 508 US 476, 113 S.Ct. 2194 [1993]).
      - According to the first amendament, the decision of Medias is completely legal
        
        Dorsey admitted the media's inability to conduct a healthy conversation, but he still released a thread saying that he made the right choice
        
        https://mobile.twitter.com/home
        jack on Twitter: "I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?"
        "I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all."
        
        Also the CEO of Facebook has the same point:
        
        https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/15/facebook-ceo-zuckerberg-calls-for-more-government-regulation-online-content.html