From a free speech/free press standpoint, private company Twitter absolutely has the right to editorialize Trump's tweets, while Trump trying to silence Twitter would be the government infringing on the right to free speech/press.
But if that were true then they would be personally liable in a court of law for tweets that break the law. Seems like they want to be treated as both an "editor" with the right to change user content and "just a distribution platform". They can't have it both ways.
What about from an FEC regulations standpoint? Does Twitter have the right to insert DNC messaging into Trump tweets without the DNC disclosing the donation?
That would be in violation of electoral law, and the moment Twitter does that, I'm sure there will be a repercussion. It's also quite the leap, even from here.
Exactly. It is just another lie that Twitter would be "stifling free speech". Free speech was not stifled: Trump could even say what he wanted even though it is a private platform.
When referring to free speech, it is common to refer to the moral backbone of freedom of speech (strong entity shouldn't be able to silence the masses) instead of just the legal/constitutional definition.
