In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people.

I don't agree that this should be expected or required of businesses, because the dangers and incentives are different. Twitter is not going to have you arrested or killed for criticizing Twitter.

I agree that it's reasonable for Twitter to try and get as many users onto its platform as possible, because that earns them more money (I guess?), but if they are faced with having to choose between two groups of users to support, and they like one group better than the other, they should be able to choose to withhold service from the other group to keep the first. Even if it means a group of users loses the ability to speak via Twitter.

> In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind, disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with like-minded people.

You didn't say why. You restated the law. There are all kinds of arguments for free speech. I'll quote Mill:

> First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

That has nothing to do with required and there's no mention of a government, federal or not. People should be allowed to say what they think. That used to be a bedrock of American culture and I continue to find it sad that we're living through its recession.

_Why_ is that the American colonists were very familiar with life in contemporary England, which had recently had a civil war over (among other things) religious freedom; the Pilgrims were mostly people who had fled England because of religious persecution. I believe you were risking a charge of treason to run your mouth about the King or members of the royal family. I guess I just assumed that the framers wanted to try and design a government where that wouldn't easily happen.

Come on now. It is clear what you believe, and it's fine that you believe it. I'm just personally tired of reading people whack Twitter, Facebook, etc. with a stick that doesn't exist. When we pass laws or ratify amendments requiring the Twitters of the world to platform everyone, the people crying about free speech on Twitter will have a legitimate gripe. Until then, they just won't.

Your inability to come up with a solid reason why free speech is good is very telling. You don't think it's good!

And I'm tired of reading comments written by people trapped in a legalistic fiction where the only thing that people are obligated to do is follow the law.

How is it legalistic fiction? What are people obligated to do, that is not required by law? I hope you're not talking about stuff like breathing. I'll also say that I haven't been thinking about morals, which I would agree cause people to feel obligated to do things that they aren't legally required to do.

Also, what is a "solid" reason? Is it just a reason you agree with? Does it have to be a purely original reason no one has uttered before? What was the right answer, so I know for next time?

I'll remind you that you specifically asked whether I thought the 1st amendment was "good." I answered that, but you didn't like my answer, so you asked me why while pivoting to free speech in general (which I've already asserted I don't believe is granted by the 1st amendment). Then, when I provided a why to the original answer, you followed up with this. You've moved the goalposts, basically dismissed my answers as not good enough, and now you just want to I guess unmask me as some sort of anti-speech person.

Can Twitter collect taxes from you, send you to prison, or - depending on state - have you executed?

1st amendment does not apply to private companies in my understanding.