> No, this is just a trite straw man repeated every single time free speech comes up.
It is no strawman argument but fundamental to the argument about free speech.
Forcing a publisher (Twitter) to publish content is as bad as forcing a publisher to not publish content. Free speech demands that Twitter be allowed to publish what it wants.
On other hand if Twitter is publisher and control what is published. They should be held responsible both criminally and financially of everything they allow to be published on their platform.
Seems entirely fair and reasonable? And not in anyway against their free speech. All speech there is theirs. Be it inciting violence or illegal graphical material. Some gets past their censor they are responsible also.
> On other hand if Twitter is publisher and control what is published. They should be held responsible both criminally and financially of everything they allow to be published on their platform.
It's fair that Twitter should be held accountable per US legislation, which is covered by Section 230:
> Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content.
> "HB 20’s critics have blasted it for infringing on the First Amendment rights of private companies. “Texas’s law violates the First Amendment because it compels social media companies to publish speech they don’t want to publish. Worse, the theory of the First Amendment that Texas is advancing in this case would give government broad power to censor and distort public discourse,” said Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement following the decision."
