Roger Stone is suing Twitter for kicking him out.
Without saying exactly why they booted him, Twitter implies that the reason is abusive language. For his part, Stone accuses the social media giant of targeting right-wing tweeters while letting left-wing tweeters off the hook for the same or worse alleged wrongdoing.
I’ll stipulate that Stone is justified in accusing Twitter of rank, ideologically motivated hypocrisy in applying its micro-blog policies. But he’s wrong to sue.
As I have argued before — indeed, just yesterday — government should not regulate Internet forums and should not compel Twitter or other firms to provide a soapbox for anybody else. The only relevant legal issue here is whether Twitter has violated a contract. But Twitter does not agree to let anyone use its services unconditionally. And I don’t think that Stone is alleging any violation of contract.
Our right to freedom of speech does not include the right to force others to give us access to their property in order to exercise that freedom. Nor do the rights of any individuals to use and dispose of their own property disappear if they happen to create a very big and successful enterprise. There are many ways to try to make Twitter pay for bad policies without using force against the company, including boycott and direct competition.
I agree with the guy who said that one’s right to freedom is not contingent upon a guarantee “that one will always do the right thing as others see it.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “The Owners of Twitter Have Rights”
Agreed Paul. But we both know that isn’t Roger’s real objective. For Roger the bottom line is the provocative headline, the lead, the viral effect of an allegation. The merits are and always be secondary. If you have not seen it I heartily recommend that you watch the documentary movie “Get Me Roger Stone” to truly understand the twisted psyche of Roger Stone. Just sayin’.….
Twitter’s repression, if practiced, shall spawn in reaction much more harm to it than leaving up a ranting account.
Mr. Stone’s motivation to bring ithe suit is clearly not to win as the claim is a dead losser, and therefore Mr Fondy is most probably correct.
The public forum of the taxpayer supported Internet allows a patented monopoly of Twitter.
Perhaps if the government forced it’s breakup, so that there were competing twitting fotums, the idea of a hands off system would be viable.
One more reason to stay off Twitter (and Facebook). Both show selective outrage. Anyone complain about Wil Wheaton’s response to people offering condolences to those impacted by the Texas church shooting? Doubtful, since he is clearly one of a ‘protected class’ — Hollywood leftists.
Also, Amazon technically has the right to ‘ban’ (refuse to list books in its catalog) books that cast light on Jewish Power, such as The Bad War by MS King (http://bit.ly/2uLkCzj_CC_Book_Review_BadWar). But when one realizes just how deeply globalist-cabal-controlled Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Wikipedia, Snopes, etc. are, it’s understandable to want to point out their perfidy, though I agree to keep the (apparent) government out of it altogether.