CENSORSHIP: New Twitter CEO ‘NOT BOUND’ By First Amendment | Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Krystal and Saagar review the free speech track record of Twitter’s new CEO after Jack Dorsey announced he would be resigning from his post as head of the social media giant

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit:

To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and Spotify




Written by Breaking Points


Leave a Reply
  1. I'm no Constitutional expert, but is it a corporations responsibility to 'support' free speech or the Constitution, except by following the nations laws? Isn't the Constitution and agreement between the Government and the governed, not between a corporation and its customers/users?

  2. It is really not up to private organizations, who are NOT bound by the first amendment, to provide public squares for free speech. If the new CEO said the opposite, that they actually WANTED to become a public square, THAT would be actually worrying, because they are not properly regulated to provide that service.

  3. so if you want to change twitter go work for them. sounds like you have way more power working for them than a billion users shouting into the void. in a world where employees get to dictate company direction not share holders.

  4. so if there NOT going to abide by the 1st amendment and the rules governing speech then why are we allowing them to operate in the USA then? if they won't protect our freedom of speech ?

  5. Sadly many engineers believe they know it all. Some scientists too. 1st amendment? I see a pattern. All of these forums are run like this. Your comment about the earth not being round (it is an irregular ovoid) is shocking to me, moderator x. You are trolling. This violates our rule. Bye.

  6. But the democrats really aren't communists and it's Trump that is a threat to our democracy! Threatening to ignore the first ten Amendments will lead to social unrest, violence and ultimately war.

  7. People hate on Zuckerberg but at least he has publicly said he is not an arbiter of truth and because he allows freedom of information it is not honest to berate him allowing information we don't like. That's childish and it is perplexing as to why authorities try to censor things from us. That is a problem. Nobody wants censorship and Facebook has resisted it and Twitter has completely embraced it.

  8. I am extremely dissappointed in you Saagar. Dorsey not committed to free speech. Only to free speech he agreed with. You should be ashamed given where you come from how he has treated the country of your forefathers.

  9. Don't use Twitter or the likes but I will say that the first amendment needs amending. It was written for times when the media was town cryers and news papers and books. Now we have 8.5 billion potential voices raging away out there and that makes for a lot of useless unwanted noise. Same for the second amendment,,,,adjust these bits to today's needs these were written a looooong time ago.

  10. Going through history it's been very wealthy men who have had control of dialogue and discourse. They owned the newspapers so they can voice their perspective louder than anyone else. In this age they have competition and that's not acceptable. Freedom of speech is fine as long as its hard to hear what you(non-wealthy) have to say. Now that everyone has a voice Freedom of speech is problematic so it's a boundary. That being they don't have the power to silence you. This new CEO exemplifies this elite mindset of freedoms for me but not for thee.

    I find it hard to believe Jack is some pro 1st amendment advocate when you have his ideological opposite as his successor who doesn't believe in the 1st amendment. Also its funny to me that this guy would happily and openly be anti-free speech in America and tell Americans free speech is the problem

  11. It's not for Twitter to decide what people should be allowed to say, nor is it a role they should ever take on. Whether there should be any limitations on speech should be decided by the people, who supposedly run society in a democracy, and Twitter, with all other organizations acting as platforms for speech, should be obligated by law to abide by that decision. What the heck is democracy for if all important decisions deeply impacting people's lives (and the ability of democratic governance to work at all) are made by a few rich autocrats at the helm of powerful organizations? Speech is too important to be left at the sole mercy of arbitrary decisions made by a few individuals without oversight.

  12. Build your own platforms and you can allow whatever you want. Someone created youtube, Twitter, various forums/platforms. If you don't like it, don't use it. But y'all want to regulate another person's company? They got big, this big, because y'all made them that way.

  13. This is where I always disagree with you guys and Tim Pool….You fail to recognize that these people KNOW what they're doing and are doing it on purpose. You think this Mess that the world was in happened accidentally?? lol cmon

  14. People keep not understanding one simple thing. The first amendment to the constitution applies ONLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Private individuals and business are not bound by it. A private business can censor or not as they please. And customers can use their services or not, as they please.

  15. Breaking news: CEO of Multinational Privately-Owned Tech Corporation is NOT BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT! How did he manage to not be bound by this law? By NOT BEING A MEMBER OF CONGRESS!

    I'm sure the content is better than the awful clickbait headline but I would appreciate if whoever wrote these headlines tried a little bit harder in the future – Freedom of Speech as an ideal is far more important than the first amendment, the latter is irrelevant here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *