social media

Is The Right to Tweet Protected By The First Amendment?


Twitter and Facebook have made no attempt to hide their liberal bias in recent years, with both platforms installing massive censorship tools.

Facebook employs an actual, physical team of people whose sole responsibility is to find trending conservative news articles and, under the auspices of “fake news”, erase them from existence on their massive social media network.  Twitter’s brand of nonsense is a bit less tacky, with complicated algorithms being utilized to seek out “hate speech” and banish it from their broadcast-ish machine.

Unfortunately, both entities have exploited these open-ended designations for the purpose of stifling the conservative viewpoints of America, much in the way that countries such as North Korea control the entirety of their nation’s media.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: New York Times Bestseller List Snubs Christians, Conservatives for Stormy Daniels…Despite Her Selling Less

Their lack of respect for the First Amendment looks as though it will be coming back to haunt them sooner rather than later, according to analysis by the Washington Examiner.

“Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.

“In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.

“Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old ‘Main Street’ — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.”

What many in the realm of constitutional law believe now is that the “Main Street” concept should apply to social media, given the shifting nature of Americans’ go-to source for information.  Also, given that Twitter and Facebook both maintain physical server houses and offices in California, the states’ rights concerns of the Pruneyard Shopping Center case are even more relevant than previously imagined.

This, of course, will reignite the controversy surrounding Mark Zuckerberg’s army of Facebook propagandists and Twitter’s banning of controversial conservative figures such as Milo Yiannopolous.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.