Read on Twitter
The first portion of this is complete and total garbage. Let me take a moment to explain why. https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/1276156422347206657
Applying the First Amendment—which exclusively restricts *government* censorship—to tech companies would literally be a government mandate that private entities are obligated to maintain a great deal of speech on their platforms that they don’t want.
Who cares, you say? Well, let me personalize it for you.
Do you think you should be able to toss a guest out of your living room for saying a bunch of objectionable racist shit? Would you have a problem with it if the government told you that you couldn’t?
Do you think you should be able to toss a guest out of your living room for saying a bunch of objectionable racist shit? Would you have a problem with it if the government told you that you couldn’t?
Prohibiting government intrusion into the sphere of private speech is a central reason for the First Amendment’s existence. The government taking action to compel private speakers or hosts (like newspapers) to tolerate and maintain speech they don’t want is the polar opposite.
There is no serious argument that such a mandate would be constitutional. Nor does the absence of such a mandate violate the “spirit of the law” or First Amendment principles in any way. It is *the First Amendment itself* that prohibits such a mandate. That’s why 
it exists.
it exists.
