The release of Twitter’s internal censorship communications has received a fraction of the coverage it deserves. The story isn’t worthwhile because Twitter was throttling some conservative voices, though that’s obviously concerning. The story has value because while Twitter was throttling those voices, its management was insisting they weren’t. Some might argue that’s not that big a deal. But by denying its actions, Twitter’s braintrust was admitting they knew what they were doing was wrong. As David French says in our linked column, if Twitter wants to be a “progressive social media platform,” that’s more than fine. But if it claims to be an open market of ideas, which it does, then that’s what it needs to be.

French is, as always, thoughtful and his position well-argued. He makes the point, missing from some first amendment arguments, that open market doesn’t mean uncontrolled. We do have freedom of speech, but we also have, as we always have, restrictions on how we exercise that speech. I can’t defame someone without consequence, nor should I be able to. Twitter can curate content without putting its thumb on the scale.

That’s all I’ll offer for a summary. Anything more does French’s argument a disservice. It’s as nuanced as any you’ll read on any topic. The man is truly a giant. Bookmark his page and check it each day. This is the type of commentator worth tuning into.