Which is a Violation of Free Speech

[OlNate]

I didn't think I needed to put such qualifiers, since the OP and the Poll refer to issues with "public forums" not homes, etc..

Actually, corporations are subject to all sorts of regulations. That is the case with the example of Section 230 and social/other media which has been debated often in this Forum and outside at large.

But, Cap'n, corporations are people, when it comes to the Constitutional rights...

I'd certainly be open to a debate around removing protection from social media venues from liability. Personally I think that there should be no exemption from liability, this would drive a great reduction in bullshit, from both sides of the political divide. But currently nothing illegal has been done, and under current law private corporations are not responsible for delivering 1A. I'm not sure how a for-profit, international organization ever could be.

The only real way to get what you want is advocate for a social media platform to be delivered by the US government, paid for ENTIRELY by the tax payer, open to American citizens only....and that's only if you trust the government...hehe... Outside of that, you're just banging your head against the wall, making a silly noise. While you might get expanded and equal censorship, through the removal of protection from liability, unregulated and unwelcome freedom of speech on an infrastructure that a private entity pays for is outside of the scope of reason, not to mention unconstitutional in your country.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

So what, in your opinion, makes Facebook or Twitter different than AT&T or Verizon? Verizon and AT&T are both private companies but they're not allowed to limit speech because they've been regulated as common carriers. The same should happen to social media companies.

The difference is neither you or I nor the government need social media to function. Not so with the telcos. My life would not be impacted in the least if Facebook or Twitter went away tomorrow. Take away my ability to call 911 or my bank or my doctor, I will have major problems.

Social media are not common carriers. They are at best a novelty until the next big thing comes along.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The difference is neither you or I nor the government need social media to function. Not so with the telcos. My life would not be impacted in the least if Facebook or Twitter went away tomorrow. Take away my ability to call 911 or my bank or my doctor, I will have major problems.

Social media are not common carriers. They are at best a novelty until the next big thing comes along.

That's not a very strong argument.

Once upon a time neither you nor I would have needed a car, a telephone, shoes, a bank account, etc., etc., etc., to function.

But now most of us ARE affected by lacking access to one or more of those kinds of things. If you are old enough to remember when there was no internet access at all, then you'd recall how that did not impact us in the least too. Now much business and communication is conducted over it, and people who work for those businesses or are customers would be very much "impacted" should that system fail.

Big Tech, and their control over the internet's access to information and communication affect all of us in the "first world" to some extent, either directly as a result of business and entertainment, or indirectly via effects on people we interact or do business with. Just look at all those fellow citizens who are so tied to their "smart-phones" it seems they would be literally lost without access to immediate information gratification.

Thus I'd argue that the growing power of Social Media, Information Accessing Media, and Main Stream Media does have an impact on you, whether you realize it or not. At the very least through their power to MOLD the minds of those you encounter every day.

So they are a force that needs to be reckoned with. Especially when it comes to their growing power to "re-write history" by highlighting certain information while scrubbing other information out of existence.

IMO you simply haven't realized this yet.

 

[Bodi]

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.

POTUS can't compel Twitter to do anything...

 

[Bodi]

That's not a very strong argument. Once upon a time neither you nor I would have needed a car, a telephone, shoes, a bank account, etc., etc., etc., to function.

And you still don't.

 

[Bodi]

So what, in your opinion, makes Facebook or Twitter different than AT&T or Verizon? Verizon and AT&T are both private companies but they're not allowed to limit speech because they've been regulated as common carriers. The same should happen to social media companies.

Because what you say on a phone is between you and that, generally, singular other party... you are not broadcasting opinions and ideas out to millions of people... the difference is so huge that I am shocked that you couldn't figure it out on your own.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

That's not a very strong argument.

Once upon a time neither you nor I would have needed a car, a telephone, shoes, a bank account, etc., etc., etc., to function.

But now most of us ARE affected by lacking access to one or more of those kinds of things. If you are old enough to remember when there was no internet access at all, then you'd recall how that did not impact us in the least too. Now much business and communication is conducted over it, and people who work for those businesses or are customers would be very much "impacted" should that system fail.

Big Tech, and their control over the internet's access to information and communication affect all of us in the "first world" to some extent, either directly as a result of business and entertainment, or indirectly via effects on people we interact or do business with. Just look at all those fellow citizens who are so tied to their "smart-phones" it seems they would be literally lost without access to immediate information gratification.

Thus I'd argue that the growing power of Social Media, Information Accessing Media, and Main Stream Media does have an impact on you, whether you realize it or not. At the very least through their power to MOLD the minds of those you encounter every day.

So they are a force that needs to be reckoned with. Especially when it comes to their growing power to "re-write history" by highlighting certain information while scrubbing other information out of existence.

IMO you simply haven't realized this yet.

I'm not arguing that the Internet is not an important aspect of our lives. I'm saying that specific entities online are not critical to the way we function. There are millions of Americans who don't even have Twitter or Facebook accounts. They get along just fine. They have all the access to news and information they want.

"scrubbing other information out of existence."?? Seriously? If anything, the Internet has facilitated access to much more information than we ever had before. Furthermore, many more points of view are available than ever before. And much of that information is available instantly.

Back when I was in college in the last century I wrote papers about the emerging technologies like hypertext and its ability to manipulate and mislead if the reader was not sophisticated enough to realize it.

There is a website called Project Gutenberg, which provides free access to literally thousands of volumes of literature in the public domain. I came across it decades ago, when all their work was strictly in plain text. They chose that format because it would make their offerings available to the maximum number of people on the planet. Today they offer works in a variety of formats. You can read about their history here. I used their works in college as I would download a text and feed it into my word processor to facilitate "cut and paste" tasks.

As long as we have widespread access to the Internet, where virtually anyone can have an audience numbering in the millions, we need to be wary of regulating access or content.

 

[molten_dragon]

Because what you say on a phone is between you and that, generally, singular other party... you are not broadcasting opinions and ideas out to millions of people... the difference is so huge that I am shocked that you couldn't figure it out on your own.

Last I checked freedom of speech wasn't dependent on how many people you were talking to at the time.

 

[molten_dragon]

The difference is neither you or I nor the government need social media to function.

Ah, so our freedom of speech should only be protected if it's deemed necessary. That's certainly not a slippery slope.

Not so with the telcos. My life would not be impacted in the least if Facebook or Twitter went away tomorrow. Take away my ability to call 911 or my bank or my doctor, I will have major problems.

Social media are not common carriers. They are at best a novelty until the next big thing comes along.

This is an extremely weak argument. Just because your life wouldn't be impacted if Twitter went away tomorrow doesn't mean nobody else's would. And at one point in history you could have said the exact same thing about the telephone. Technology changes over time. Our rights have to change to keep up.

 

[Yes_Minister]

It is not in any substantial way a private entity. It significantly impacts American politics and its actions are driven more by the media than by any discernible profit motive. That it happens incidentally to generate profit for certain private individuals is not relevant.

These tech companies are still corporations, not government agencies.

For decades, conservatives said we should just let the Free Market decided everything and this is the result, giant unregulated corporations having an insane amount of power in society. I didn’t see conservatives complain when Facebook caused a genocide in Burma:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

So what do you suggest be done, break up these tech companies, bring back the fairness doctorine, treat the internet as ulitity? I am fine with all of that, but it requires actual government regulation and not just letting the Free Market decide.

 

[Bodi]

Last I checked freedom of speech wasn't dependent on how many people you were talking to at the time.

That wasn't close to my point. I was talk about the vehicle of communication.

Walking through a neighborhood at 3 in the morning shouting your free speech is illegal.

Speech/writing is not always legal just because you want it to be and it is not incumbent on others to allow you to speak on their platform.

 

[AmNat]

These tech companies are still corporations, not government agencies.

This is a meaningless distinction.

For decades, conservatives said we should just let the Free Market decided everything and this is the result, giant unregulated corporations having an insane amount of power in society. I didn’t see conservatives complain when Facebook caused a genocide in Burma:

I don't really care what happens in Burma since I don't live there and I don't now anyone who lives there. But if the Burmese government were to for some reason ask my advice, I'd likely recommend expelling the State Department and its various "non-governmental" appendages, blocking American social media, and building their own. Or using China's. Or whatever they want, since it's their country.

So what do you suggest be done, break up these tech companies, bring back the fairness doctorine, treat the internet as ulitity? I am fine with all of that, but it requires actual government regulation and not just letting the Free Market decide.

I'm not under the illusion that I (or conservatives generally) have any power over the tech giants (if we did they wouldn't be censoring us). My purpose in discussing politics is primarily diagnostic, not prescriptive.

 

[The Mark]

Privatization has gone so far we've even privatized the metaphorical public square.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Ah, so our freedom of speech should only be protected if it's deemed necessary. That's certainly not a slippery slope.

No, the 1st amendment only restricts the government from suppressing speech, not private entities. Civics 101.
For example, my home is a 1st amendment-free zone. You don't get to come into my home and spout whatever you like. If I don't like what you say, I can have you removed and the SCOTUS will back me up.

When you're on DP, FB, or Twitter, you're in somebody else's house. Further, you explicitly agreed to the TOS when you created your account. There is not a court in the land that will rule that getting kicked off social media is a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[molten_dragon]

No, the 1st amendment only restricts the government from suppressing speech, not private entities. Civics 101.

Wrong. Certain private companies (phone companies most notably) are not allowed to restrict speech in exchange for having no responsibility for what's said using their services. Social media should be regulated the same way.

 

[Surrealistik]

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.

While a private entity deplatforming/delisting a personality or an app is not an imposition on freedom of speech as it is presently constitutionally and legally defined, and I will certainly not grieve for Parler (which was subject to a clear double standard as Facebook proved far worse for alt-right radicalization and the plotting of the Capitol Hill attack yet was subject to no censure), the monopolistic power certain mega corporations have over the dissemination of speech is both alarming and notable.

 

[Surrealistik]

Wrong. Certain private companies (phone companies most notably) are not allowed to restrict speech in exchange for having no responsibility for what's said using their services. Social media should be regulated the same way.

At a minimum we should leverage the anti-trust laws that exist explicitly to break up and limit excess consolidations of corporate power which are frankly long overdue for utilization.