Which is a Violation of Free Speech

[Cameron]

People seriously need free speech 101.

Option 1 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of contract

Option 2 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of association (anti-discrim laws generally prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. - not political affiliation or viewpoint)

Option 3 - clear and obvious violations of the freedom of speech, freedom of association, AND freedom of contract.

 

[AmNat]

People seriously need free speech 101.

Option 1 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of contract

Option 2 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of association (anti-discrim laws generally prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. - not political affiliation or viewpoint)

Option 3 - clear and obvious violations of the freedom of speech, freedom of association, AND freedom of contract.

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.

 

[Cameron]

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.

Incorrect in all respects.

 

[BlueTex]

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.

Please use the attached envelope to return your bar card and JD....

 

[ttwtt78640]

People seriously need free speech 101.

Option 1 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of contract

Option 2 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of association (anti-discrim laws generally prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. - not political affiliation or viewpoint)

Option 3 - clear and obvious violations of the freedom of speech, freedom of association, AND freedom of contract.

If one is free to discriminate (aka deny service to) folks based on political affiliation or viewpoint is it then OK (for a business) to have (exercise?) the viewpoint that only people which they agree with (politically) will be served?

 

[Mycroft]

Which President compelled a private social media company to give him a platform to spread propaganda?

 

[Jetboogieman]

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company".

Please explain.

 

[vegas giants]

If one is free to discriminate (aka deny service to) folks based on political affiliation or viewpoint is it then OK (for a business) to have (exercise?) the viewpoint that only people which they agree with (politically) will be served?

Yes. That's legal. Political viewpoint is not a protected category

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which President compelled a private social media company to give him a platform to spread propaganda?

I think it was either Nixon or Reagan, but I’ll try to verify that.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes. That's legal. Political viewpoint is not a protected category

Great news! I’ll use the following terms of service: prices and service subject to change (without prior notice) based on customer attitude.

 

[vegas giants]

Great news! I’ll use the following terms of service: prices and service subject to change (without prior notice) based on customer attitude.

Perfectly legal

 

[Aunt Antifa]

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company".

Except the sense that they are legally defined as such.

 

[OlNate]

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company". Also commercial freedom of association has not existed in this country for over half a century.

Look at this socialist! What the hell is going on in commie Murica??

 

[Geoist]

If there is anything I've learned when it comes to many conservatives it's three things:

1.They love to tout the Constitution
2. They love to tout the Bible
3. They never really read either one.

 

[OlNate]

Great news! I’ll use the following terms of service: prices and service subject to change (without prior notice) based on customer attitude.

lol....do you ever read those long ass legal documents before hitting the "I agree" button? I don't....

 

[Geoist]

There is no meaningful sense in which Twitter is a "private company".

So much for propertarian conservatism!

 

[OlNate]

So much for propertarian conservatism!

And they get pissed at us for laughing at them....

 

[ttwtt78640]

lol....do you ever read those long ass legal documents before hitting the "I agree" button? I don't....

Yep, but their lawyers are often not clever enough to include “without prior notice” - making it totally unnecessary to even offer that “I agree” button.

 

[molten_dragon]

None of those are violations of free speech but the first two should be. Rights need to change as technology changes. Free speech would be pretty meaningless if it was limited only to forms of communication available in 1787. Social media has become as integral to communication as the telephone has, and should be regulated the same way.

 

[OlNate]

Yep, but their lawyers are often not clever enough to include “without prior notice” - making it totally unnecessary to even offer that “I agree” button.

lmao... the "I agree" button is the gateway for voluntary servitude - we put our own collars on.

Of course, I'm just there to put up pictures of my kid and my cats, to research sausage recipes in my sausage making group, and find out which of my friends have turned into uncontrollable political lunatics, so my own oppression has been pleasantly problem free.

 

[Captain Adverse]

People seriously need free speech 101.

Option 1 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of contract

Option 2 - not a violation of freedom of speech; an exercise of freedom of association (anti-discrim laws generally prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, sex, disability, sexual orientation, etc. - not political affiliation or viewpoint)

Option 3 - clear and obvious violations of the freedom of speech, freedom of association, AND freedom of contract.

Strangely, I could argue that none are, AND all are "violations of free speech."

You see, freedom of expression is a two way street. Those who wish to "express" under such freedoms are able to do so, meanwhile those who don't wish to listen to such expression are also free to do so.

However, IMO the problem is being bogged down with the idea that freedom of expression is a right being granted by the Constitution under the 1st Amendment, and thus only a bar against government censorship. This misses the point entirely, as the issue is not simply one where it can be "enforced" by government power, but rather an ideal of general freedom which should be embraced by society as a whole.

Thus IMO whenever ANY actor seeks to suppress speech it does not like, that should be considered a violation of freedom of speech.

There are all sorts of methods to respond to speech one does not like, the easiest being simply voting with one's feet...i.e. not listening, watching, or participating. I do that quite often here in this Forum.

Thus one could argue that all three actions are simply "voting with one's feet."

ON the other hand the problem with many who claim that social media, acting as "private companies" may ban or otherwise inhibit expression with impunity undermines the original views that such "media" are the new "marketplace of ideas." You know, the argument used when Twitter prevented President Trump from blocking responses to his Tweets way back when? A "privilege" still accorded to "non-political" members of that "marketplace."

So IMO all three are tacit, if not explicit violations of free speech.

 

[OlNate]

None of those are violations of free speech but the first two should be. Rights need to change as technology changes. Free speech would be pretty meaningless if it was limited only to forms of communication available in 1787. Social media has become as integral to communication as the telephone has, and should be regulated the same way.

I agree. But, the most appropriate response to this would be for your government to build a national platform, with taxpayer dollars, which reflects the will and needs of the entire population in it's TOS... not highjack existing businesses. Without the innovation and work and investment companies like Facebook and Twitter have put in on their own dime, none of these technologies would exist in the first place. If a nationalized version is required, it should be built. I'd support taxing these businesses in order to pay for some of it, but that's about it.

 

[LouC]

Which President compelled a private social media company to give him a platform to spread propaganda?

It is a hypothetical posing.

Based, no doubt, on the previous actions and threats of the ersatz shit gibbon president, currently in office, with, Thank GOD, but a mere 5 more days in office.

For Example this Trump threat below was made in response to and only a day after a social media platform he used prolifically to spread his lies and misinformation added a new screening fact checking program to their service.

"Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can't let a more sophisticated version of that happen again." ~ ersatz president Donald Trump May 27, 2020

There you go.

 

[beancounter]

If one is free to discriminate (aka deny service to) folks based on political affiliation or viewpoint is it then OK (for a business) to have (exercise?) the viewpoint that only people which they agree with (politically) will be served?

gay wedding cake...

 

[ttwtt78640]

lmao... the "I agree" button is the gateway for voluntary servitude - we put our own collars on.

Of course, I'm just there to put up pictures of my kid and my cats, to research sausage recipes in my sausage making group, and find out which of my friends have turned into uncontrollable political lunatics, so my own oppression has been pleasantly problem free.

They let you be there (for free, no less) to capture your browsing history, examine your ‘cookie’ collection (and any other files they may care to peek at) and to sell that valuable personal data to any and all willing to pay for it. Keep pressing that “I agree” button without reading the fine print.