If we have freedom of speech then how come websites or apps can ban or blacklist or whiteout

[Jason Warfield]

It is true that private companies can ban whatever speech they want.

But this opens a can of worms. Can the huge actors like Facebook, Twitter and the like now be considered essentially monopolies and can they be subject to anti trust legislation?

I wonder if this has been considered.

In terms of cornering a market over profit, then certainly and it would not surprise me if such lawsuits were to occur in the near future.

In terms of providing free speech...no. As long as Congress doesn't do something stupid like Trump wanted and repeal the rule that makes the internet the internet. The internet can provide anyone with the ability to make their voice heard. Now, if you were to try to make a business out of it and then squeezed out because there is a monopoly...THEN you can bring in an anti-trust suit.

Your rights exist regardless if you can money off of your rights or not.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Monopolies of what? That is what first has to be determined. And even so, that right of theirs to limit speech on their platforms only does nothing to even de facto limit individual speech. We are still free to go out in the world's and say and print whatever we want. Freedom of speech does not come with a guarantee of platform for said speech.

In terms of cornering a market over profit, then certainly and it would not surprise me if such lawsuits were to occur in the near future.

In terms of providing free speech...no. As long as Congress doesn't do something stupid like Trump wanted and repeal the rule that makes the internet the internet. The internet can provide anyone with the ability to make their voice heard. Now, if you were to try to make a business out of it and then squeezed out because there is a monopoly...THEN you can bring in an anti-trust suit.

Your rights exist regardless if you can money off of your rights or not.

I like this forum because it is the best for respecting speech. Sadly it can’t even begin to approach the audience of say Twitter or YouTube or Facebook. In the absence of criminal prosecution of freedom of expression in the states they act as effective surrogates.

I hope that these platforms start to be boycotted by free speech enthusiasts. All I can do is avoid them myself. I am shocked that Geert Wilders hasn’t been banned in any of these here.

On the other side politically, can you imagine the uproar if any of these were to ban Ilhan Omar or other heroes of the left?

 

[maquiscat]

In terms of cornering a market over profit, then certainly and it would not surprise me if such lawsuits were to occur in the near future.

They are not going to corner any kind of market that affects free speech. Social media is by no means anyone's right, anymore so than a book publisher. While it might be possible to claim a monopoly in and of itself, even that would not be impacting upon free speech.

 

[Sagittarius83]

They are not going to corner any kind of market that affects free speech. Social media is by no means anyone's right, anymore so than a book publisher. While it might be possible to claim a monopoly in and of itself, even that would not be impacting upon free speech.

I am the only person I know who is not on Facebook or Twitter and I avoid everything Google including YouTube.

All I can do is avoid these platforms which I do.

I just don’t understand why they are so allergic to certain kinds of speech.

Outside of things involving kids and the giving away of military secrets I disapprove of any restriction in the marketplace of ideas.

 

[Peter]

This place is free to set its own rules and ban people as they see fit.
That does not affect your freedom of speech as this is not the same as a park or other area where free speech rules apply.

You are free to choose another forum and state whatever opinion you like there.

This is no different than being banned from a shop for refusing to wear pants is not suppression of freedom of speech.

 

[Sagittarius83]

This place is free to set its own rules and ban people as they see fit.
That does not affect your freedom of speech as this is not the same as a park or other area where free speech rules apply.

You are free to choose another forum and state whatever opinion you like there.

This is no different than being banned from a shop for refusing to wear pants is not suppression of freedom of speech.

If a social media platform were to ban women or minority groups from speaking their mind would you support that group’s right to do so?

 

[donhughesmusic]

If a social media platform were to ban women or minority groups from speaking their mind would you support that group’s right to do so?

Technically that already happens. Curves Gym only allows women to join (in some states at least).

 

[Sagittarius83]

Technically that already happens. Curves Gym only allows women to join (in some states at least).

It seems that women and minority groups are still free to discriminate. Compensatory discrimination some are calling it.

Certainly no gym would be allowed that denied entrance to women.

 

[Peter]

If a social media platform were to ban women or minority groups from speaking their mind would you support that group’s right to do so?

That's slightly different as that's targeting a race, sex or religion.
Forums can't be seen to ban based on such things and I can't see it ever happening here because why would you ban someone for simply being a woman or a fringe religion?

 

[Sagittarius83]

That's slightly different as that's targeting a race, sex or religion.
Forums can't be seen to ban based on such things and I can't see it ever happening here because why would you ban someone for simply being a woman or a fringe religion?

But some forum will try it. And the question is should they be allowed to.

 

[Glowpun]

The First Amendment applies to the government being constricted from governing one's right to to free speech. But this amendment does not apply to non-government entities.

Facebook and Twitter and the like are private concerns and have the right to make their own rules and decide who they do or do not want as customers.

 

[Sagittarius83]

The First Amendment applies to the government being constricted from governing one's right to to free speech. But this amendment does not apply to non-government entities.

Facebook and Twitter and the like are private concerns and have the right to make their own rules and decide who they do or do not want as customers.

But how far can the exclusion apply?
If these entities were to say that they only want white conservative males and others are banned would they be within the bounds of US law?

 

[Peter]

It seems that women and minority groups are still free to discriminate. Compensatory discrimination some are calling it.

Certainly no gym would be allowed that denied entrance to women.

But some forum will try it. And the question is should they be allowed to.

Nope.
This place can ban you for anything they feel like except for simply being a minority or a woman.

 

[Sagittarius83]

Nope.
This place can ban you for anything they feel like except for simply being a minority or a woman.

By implication then you are saying that those two groups are protected from banning by reason of their existential reality? Non minorities and men are not so protected in your opinion. Is this correct?

 

[notquiteright]

It is true that private companies can ban whatever speech they want.

But this opens a can of worms. Can the huge actors like Facebook, Twitter and the like now be considered essentially monopolies and can they be subject to anti trust legislation?

I wonder if this has been considered.

I don't see the Feds taking action on this, no matter the whining tRump boot lickers like Cruz. The Feds have for years slowly backed away from attempting to regulate big players. Citizens United set the tone. Anti-trust is a pretty high bar. I don't see trying to threaten social media with anti-trust legal action as useful. But some hyper partisans will rail about it for face time on the very media they curse as biased.

I'd imagine the ranting will get as much traction in courts and living rooms as tRumpers threatening Baseball over moving the All Star Game....

 

[Sagittarius83]

I don't see the Feds taking action on this, no matter the whining tRump boot lickers like Cruz. The Feds have for years slowly backed away from attempting to regulate big players. Citizens United set the tone. Anti-trust is a pretty high bar. I don't see trying to threaten social media with anti-trust legal action as useful. But some hyper partisans will rail about it for face time on the very media they curse as biased.

I'd imagine the ranting will get as much traction in courts and living rooms as tRumpers threatening Baseball over moving the All Star Game....

Getting beyond Trump (as people who live in the present should do) do you think there comes a tipping point where huge media come to control the debate by the sheer number of people under their umbrella of influence and who they exclude from the debate?

Keep in mind that most US millennials trust the news provided by SNL and the daily show as real news. They are obviously naive and easily led.

 

[notquiteright]

Getting beyond Trump (as people who live in the present should do) do you think there comes a tipping point where huge media come to control the debate by the sheer number of people under their umbrella of influence and who they exclude from the debate?

Keep in mind that most US millennials trust the news provided by SNL and the daily show as real news. They are obviously naive and easily led.

First what is huge media? What debate would someone be excluded from/ Repeatedly posting bald faced lies is different from disagreeing over policy. Calling for revolution isn't debate.

tRump and his administration is something people should never forget...

Like McCarthy and Nixon, we should remember how easily so called mature Americans are fooled into believing lies and cover-ups by conservative politicians. How many republicans believe tRump is president, the election was 'stolen' and refuse to get the vaccine- so I reckon far more than millennials are obviously naïve and easily lead....

 

[maquiscat]

I am the only person I know who is not on Facebook or Twitter and I avoid everything Google including YouTube.

I am not personally on Facebook or Twitter. Closest I get is my family has accounts for our board game demonstration team, and I will make informational posts to them.

I just don’t understand why they are so allergic to certain kinds of speech.

Personal preference. Every site has certain things you're not allowed to post, even if it is as simple as a personals ad like post on a political forum. It's part of their rights of private property.

Outside of things involving kids and the giving away of military secrets I disapprove of any restriction in the marketplace of ideas.

Just because certain sections of the marketplace is closed to you, does not mean that the whole marketplace is closed to you? Are you saying that the tanner should be allowed next to the fruit seller, just because he wants to be in that section?

 

[maquiscat]

If a social media platform were to ban women or minority groups from speaking their mind would you support that group’s right to do so?

The key here is what is being banned. The speech itself is not protected from the site. Only if the same speech is coming from men but not banned but it is banned when women same the same thing, then it's wrong on a discrimination basis, not a speech basis. And even that is tricky in private endeavors outside of business. For example many fraternal organizations are separated by sex/gender and it's perfectly legal.

 

[maquiscat]

It seems that women and minority groups are still free to discriminate. Compensatory discrimination some are calling it.

Certainly no gym would be allowed that denied entrance to women.

I doubt that it could be stopped, at least not in a location where there is a women's only gym, without forcing the law to make the women's gym integrate as well.

 

[maquiscat]

But how far can the exclusion apply?
If these entities were to say that they only want white conservative males and others are banned would they be within the bounds of US law?

Again, you are conflating two different things. If you are limiting speech based on the speaker and not the content, then you are not actually limiting speech. Only if you are preventing speech regardless of who is saying it do you have a speech rights issue.

 

[maquiscat]

By implication then you are saying that those two groups are protected from banning by reason of their existential reality? Non minorities and men are not so protected in your opinion. Is this correct?

Individual members of those groups are not protected if something they say goes against the owner(s)' desires. Only if it can be shown that the woman (or whatever) was banned simply and only for being part of that group. If men and women both saying the same thing are banned, then that is within the rights of the owner with no violation to free speech rights. But if women are banned for saying the same them that men are, but the men don't get banned, then you have a discrimination issue, but it is still not a violation of free speech rights.

 

[Sagittarius83]

I sure hope so!

I keep thinking is there really any social networking site that can deliver political thought at near saturation levels like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and such?

If not then are the giants not effectively preventing significant expression? Especially when we are talking about millennials who generally don’t turn to diverse media for their information.

This is a difficult ethical question for me because these are still private media (and I am a firm free expression person) but I am stunned that as such they would be so keen on controlling speech content.

Do the members here think that if Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were to disallow speech from leftist sources that people with a leftist orientation would be so understanding of private media rights?

What if Twitter had a policy of not allowing speech from pro choice people for example? What if they banned speech from people supporting lockdowns or mask wearing? What if they banned any speech criticizing Donald Trump?

How sacred would their right as private platforms be?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.

Because the first ammendment applies to the government.

Private companies can do what they want.

No shirt no shoes no service, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. These are our policies. Follow them or bye.

 

[AGENT J]

I keep thinking is there really any social networking site that can deliver political thought at near saturation levels like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and such?

If not then are the giants not effectively preventing significant expression? Especially when we are talking about millennials who generally don’t turn to diverse media for their information.

This is a difficult ethical question for me because these are still private media (and I am a firm free expression person) but I am stunned that as such they would be so keen on controlling speech content.

Do the members here think that if Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were to disallow speech from leftist sources that people with a leftist orientation would be so understanding of private media rights?

for me it doesnt matter what I think, or a lefty thinks or a right thinks its about rights and they have the right to ban or suspend people form their property as they want

What if Twitter had a policy of not allowing speech from pro choice people for example? What if they banned speech from people supporting lockdowns or mask wearing? What if they banned any speech criticizing Donald Trump?

totally 100% their call

How sacred would their right as private platforms be?

100% sacred

there's no legal justification to violate their rights or my rights based on popularity and force me against my will to allow people on my property