"Oh yea, then why can't a baker refuse to bake a cake?"

 Already answered that: Because of Discrimination.  Not Freedom of Speech.  Very clearly established in the legal documents.  The ruling literally says "Discriminated against".  

"Letting the Facebook guy or that Twitter guy decide what is or isn't protected speech is dangerous."

 They aren't deciding what is "Protected" speech.  By deciding what they allow to be distributed on their owned platform is not by definition hindering a protected class of people.  It's not even close, nor is it the same laws.

 People are mixing the 1st Amendment into other Amendments and laws.  This is no different than protesters complaining that can not "Peaceably Assemble" on private property.  That's not what the 1st protects, it does not give you permission to assemble on private property.
 
"How long until someone who says "the effects of climate change are being overstated..." is banned due to the influence of very lucrative climate change industry?"

 This already happens.  If you choose to use that private business as your single source of evidence then you will be misinformed.

 You mean to tell me that Fox News must let guests on and must let those guests talk about whatever they want because of the 1st Amendment?   That's what people want Twitter to do.

  Alex Jones and Farakan are not a protected class.  Also they do not pay nor have a contract to conduct their business through Twitter.  Is it also discrimination that Legal Marijuana companies can not use Twitter to advertise directly?  Twitter is infringing on their ability to conduct business... oh wait, its right there in the Terms of Use, just like it is for everyone that uses it... everyone.

 Jones and Farakan are not a protected class, either is T T, or me or you, that's why it would be perfectly legal for a Moderator here to edit or limit my posts, even ban me, if that Moderator just didn't like me.  I have zero legal recourse as I am not a protected class using this as a public space.

 I agree that social media is a toolset that is prone to abuse and as such should have some legal reform.  That reform should reflect our Constitutional rights, but can not simply because of how old it is, be a direct usage.  

 I do not agree that they violate the 1st Amendment by restricting user content, but may be in violation of other laws.  However I think it is more likely a law simply doesn't exist in form that is strong enough to tie directly to what modern technology can do.

 To me it's a double edged sword, tech moves much faster than modern government which is good because the government can't up and censor or limit access to the outside world on a whim, but it's also bad because of the limited protections from criminal activity.

Whatever happened to understanding the simpleness, of sumtin we learned as children.......of:

Sticks and stones, will break my bones, but names will never hurt me, etc....?

Me thinks too many folk are looking to be victims, and butt hurt......

And once your butt is out of commission, because you want it so, you can no longer poop, and the shiet backs up so far, it reaches your brain....and all you can talk, is crap.    

"OK so under, Discrimination only, a person can sue a Muslim religion Sandwich shop into the ground, because they did not provide a, 'Pork' Sandwich.

Because clearly, a Christianity religion Cake Baking shop, can NOT say, 'Religion', because it is Discrimination."

 No.

 You are clearly mixing Bill of Rights with 1st Amendment.  Also it does not pertain to this topic as cake shops refusing service is different than a customer agreeing to the Terms of Service, and complaining when a company changes or exercises them.  Even if you agreed that this is ok.

 From a legal perspective these aren't even close to the same thing.  The issue here is people claim Twitter can not ban their customers from their service because it violates the 1st Amendment.

 A more accurate comparison would be a cake shop letting customers have free cakes under the Terms of Service.  Then suing the cake shop for violating your freedom of speech when they don't let you have free cake anymore because you put icing on them they didn't like.
 

^^^  That is correct.  

IIRC the Colorado bakers did win in the supreme court, but at an enormous cost.

Best regards,

pg wrote on 05/05/19 at 16:43:17:


if I recall correctly, the Colorado bakers won in part because they were able to prove their work was art. And the state cannot compel an artist to work on someone's behalf. Flipping a hamburger and McDonald's is not art so McDonald's could not refuse service.

pg wrote on 05/04/19 at 14:38:41:


On Twitter?  Last time I checked, this isn't Twitter.