Joe Tomasone wrote:
They use two terms to describe the newly prohibited content: "Media of private individuals" and "private image or video".

The main problem is that they never quite define what they mean. 

My take on it is that it will involve images taken in a non-public setting, such as someone's house.   The major impetus seems to be to prevent doxxing, harassment, extortion, and related issues.   

I really don't think that they are going to go after street photography, the crowd at a ball game, or the like.   First, someone would have to complain, and that seems a tall order.    What they are really looking at are images that the subject would not want to see published because it causes them harm. 

My two cents.

I am sure you are 100% right about the initial intent. That is why I said I understand the need. But if the criteria is unclear at the beginning, it will be tested by some, and abused by others. The city council meeting- typically a polarized situation- someone WILL complain. Political fundraisers - someone will take offense... Tough once you start to define the limit- the line not to be crossed.

LnN Studio wrote:
Not on Twitter, never will .
How can you have a public forum that is hostile to open and free discussion as it was since the beginning and the new CEO seems to be openly hostile to the First Amendment which was a matter of law doesnt apply to Social media but is a core , fundamental American value.

When was it a core fundamental American value to besmirch someone?  Didn't they use to have duels over inflammatory words and accusations?  How can you have duel a regarding what was said if there was a First Amendment right to disparage someone inappropriately?  It seems like in the past, Americans have often tempered their tongues for the sake of civility.

Where you see hostility by Twitter, I see a them exhibiting a lack of judgement regarding their failure to prohibit certain disgusting people from using their platform.  Back in the days of writing letters to the editor, a missive which lacked decorum would never have been printed.  Why didn't you resolve the problem back then?

Are you in favor of a low life harming a woman by releasing her nude photos on a format that could cause them to be widely seen around her community and the world?  Are you supporting the right of people to tell lies and falsehoods that harm a person?  The Twitter pendulum may be swinging too far, but isn't it the fault and responsibility of the people who have misused their First Amendment freedoms by failing to have common decency?

In fact, won't it help the insurgents cause, if people are prohibited from Twitting the photos of the racists and insurgents as they are expressing their right to assembly with tiki torches and chanting racist slogans and to disrupt Congress?  How do we identify them if their photos aren't out there?

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/articl … -hampshire
excerpts:
Justice Francis W. Murphy, writing for a unanimous court, held that certain written or spoken words are exempt from First Amendment protection when they instigate violent reactions by listeners.

Although most speech falls under the protection of the First Amendment freedom of speech, expressions that are “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

He added that whenever such speech fails to “contribute to the expression of ideas [or] possessed any ‘social value’ for the truth,” the right to utter that speech can be limited by government when it seeks to promote the “social interest in order and morality.”

___________
So much for your core American value.  The court disagrees.


Other:
https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontent … -protected

LnN Studio wrote:
Not on Twitter, never will .
How can you have a public forum that is hostile to open and free discussion as it was since the beginning and the new CEO seems to be openly hostile to the First Amendment which was a matter of law doesnt apply to Social media but is a core , fundamental American value.

The comment above is mostly off topic. but the short answer is that the First Amendment only applies to the government. Doesn't apply to private companies or individuals. There was a recent decision in the case of the Texas law that attempted to punish social media companies that affirms this principal: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi … w-n1285217

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Did they just ban street photography of people?

I don't think so. The operative section in their new ToS is below, and it's being reported that Twitter means it as an opt out (i.e. there must be a request for removal, in which case the tweet is removed unless there was permission) rather than opt in (permission must be affirmatively demonstrated for each post).

When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it. This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.

Model Mayhem Edu wrote:
Did they just ban street photography of people?

Not really. You just can't post the images on Twitter. (Without a model release.)

LnN Studio wrote:
Not on Twitter, never will .
How can you have a public forum that is hostile to open and free discussion as it was since the beginning and the new CEO seems to be openly hostile to the First Amendment which was a matter of law doesnt apply to Social media but is a core , fundamental American value.

Freedom of association is a core, fundamental American value. What so many fail to understand is that means freedom not to associate. Another core, fundamental American value is that freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns one.