---
title: "Matthew Ainslie It is most certainly repugnant to the First..."
date: 2025-01-19
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Matthew Ainslie's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYPOZ_tHNKi_dOQfIXQHPkwzsPevzbvLzj1whJBHsvV-jjWOFJUFlMjZNIiWercQq0gJVuB33mujvGYF2VBLSdS2QcRo18aNAMtk90ggQjZSRRJ-X10m71dvsFSMrWif_BO_21QhhqmEbLw2KDms7vmx8B3JoiXW-zxKSbHt3BNXF9yrtEfXGf4jVECiMKfffWoTY5rTMvc&s=519"
---

# Matthew Ainslie It is most certainly repugnant to the First...

*January 19, 2025 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Matthew Ainslie's comment.*

Matthew Ainslie It is most certainly repugnant to the First Amendment!  Imagine if the Congress demanded that Twitter had to sell itself to Facebook before it could legally operate in the US.  You don't think that would have a huge chilling effect on what people could say on Twitter? And it is most certainly not "content neutral"--they cited the prospect that China might be using TikTok to spread Chinese propaganda as justification for the ban.