I was a latecomer to Twitter.\u00a0\u00a0While I created a Twitter \u201chandle\u201d nine years ago (in fact, two; @martydahlman and @demintrumpworld) I really didn\u2019t \u201cparticipate\u201d in Twitter.\u00a0\u00a0I posted essays to @martydahlman, and I occasionally cruised through an evening\u2019s newsfeed.\u00a0\u00a0It was only in the last couple of years that I started seriously looking through my Twitter feed, especially since the January 6th<\/sup>\u00a0Insurrection.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n So I didn\u2019t pay a lot of attention when Elon Musk, the Tesla owning, space exploring, richest man in the world, took over.\u00a0\u00a0I heard all of the \u201cbad news\u201d; that Musk would wreck Twitter.\u00a0\u00a0But up until yesterday, it didn\u2019t really change what I saw.\u00a0\u00a0But now one of the authors on my Twitter feed, Aaron Ruper, is banned.\u00a0\u00a0After all of this time, Musk finally impacted me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m a little sad.\u00a0\u00a0I feel like I missed the heyday of Twitter,\u00a0\u00a0and came in at the end when things are getting bitter.\u00a0\u00a0And I don\u2019t know what to do \u2013 open a \u201cMastodon\u201d account, or go to \u201cPost.News\u201d; or what.\u00a0\u00a0Twitter was addicting.\u00a0\u00a0You could watch the experts on TV, folks like Neil Katyal, former acting Solicitor General of the United States, or Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law Professor.\u00a0\u00a0And then you could get what they really thought on Twitter, the story behind the more formal\u00a0MSNBC\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0CNN\u00a0<\/em>presentation.\u00a0\u00a0You got the \u201cinside scoop\u201d \u2013 and now it looks like that\u2019s gone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ve heard a lot of whining about Twitter, first from the right and now from the left. One of the most annoying \u201cwhines\u201d is that somehow Twitter did, or is, or would, violate users First Amendment rights. It\u2019s annoying because it\u2019s wrong. Twitter can do anything, muzzle members, suspend accounts, or allow some folks to say a thing and others not. But none of that has a damn thing to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAHHHH \u2013 but what about Freedom of Speech!! That\u2019s guaranteed to every American, in the Constitution, in the First Amendment. You can\u2019t take that away!!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s what the First Amendment actually says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCongress shall make no law\u2026abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press\u201d \u2013 First Amendment to the US Constitution.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It states that Congress, and by extension, the government of the United States, cannot make a law taking away the ability to freely express your views, in speech or in the press. And that \u201cextension\u201d is further stretched to include state and local governments by the 14th<\/sup> Amendment, through the due process and equal protection clause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So if the US, or Ohio, or Pataskala (my little town\u2019s) government wrote a law that tried to prevent me from expressing my opinion here in \u201cOur America\u201d, that would violate the First Amendment.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0If the local police came and told me that \u201cBiden for President\u201d signs (or those damn F**k Biden flags down the street) aren\u2019t allowed here in Pataskala, that would be a violation too.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Twitter is not the government, and Elon Musk, as rich as he is, isn\u2019t either. Twitter is a private company, a social media platform provided as a money-making \u201cservice\u201d that we can choose to use or not. And if we don\u2019t like the rules \u2013 then we should take our \u201cbusiness\u201d somewhere else. Because Twitter (and Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, and even Truth Social) are just stores on an online Main Street. We can go in, we can buy their product, or we can walk on by. The laws that apply to the government, don\u2019t necessarily apply to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about Tik-Tok?\u00a0\u00a0Just yesterday a bill was introduced in the US Congress to actually ban the Tik-Tok app in the United States.\u00a0\u00a0Isn\u2019t that violating Tik-Tok\u2019s First Amendment rights?\u00a0\u00a0The short answer is yes \u2013 but.\u00a0\u00a0Yes, if Tik-Tok is a private company then it has First Amendment freedom of speech rights.\u00a0\u00a0The Supreme Court ruled those were protected in Citizen\u2019s United, the case about corporations giving campaign donations to politicians.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n But if Tik-Tok is really just an exciting lure, a \u201cstalking horse\u201d to gather information for the Chinese government, it raises a whole different issue. Other governments aren\u2019t guaranteed First Amendment rights. So if Tik Tok is just an extension of Chinese Intelligence, it can be banned, much to the dismay of every social media user under twenty-five. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t like the way Elon Musk is running Twitter. And I\u2019m not so sure that I like the way Zuckerberg runs Facebook. I may have to go onto virtual Main Street and find other platforms to use. Then I can say whatever I want about those two billionaires. But if I say it on their platforms, say it on the Twitter that Musk paid $40 billion for; why should I be surprised that he takes \u201chis ball\u201d and goes home? <\/p>\n\n\n\n He paid for it. Twitter\u2019s his, not mine. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Left and Right United<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Online Main Street<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Take His Ball<\/h3>\n\n\n\n