Which is a Violation of Free Speech

[OlNate]

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.

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.

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" accorded to "non-political" members of that "marketplace."

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

Hey, Cap'n. Shoot me your address in private messages, I wanna send my American cousin to your place to hang a picture of the new President and Vice President on your mantle. I know you'll be cool with this, as you wouldn't want to suppress free speech.

 

[OlNate]

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.

Oh, I'm aware, in general. But I'm a believer in personal responsibility. I figure if I'm getting something I haven't paid for, I don't really own it, and act accordingly. Life is simple when you don't assume entitlement.

 

[beefheart]

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.

When you say something this stupid, at least try to back it up with some actual proof.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Oh, I'm aware, in general. But I'm a believer in personal responsibility. I figure if I'm getting something I haven't paid for, I don't really own it, and act accordingly. Life is simple when you don't assume entitlement.

I certainly will...as soon as my front-room becomes a new "marketplace of ideas and expression.

 

[The AntiDonald]

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

I don't know that Trump compelled anyone to give him a platform. However, Twitter went way out of there way to allow his continuous BS to be posted. By there rules, he should have been banned long ago.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oh, I'm aware, in general. But I'm a believer in personal responsibility. I figure if I'm getting something I haven't paid for, I don't really own it, and act accordingly. Life is simple when you don't assume entitlement.

It’s not what I’m getting for free which concerns me - it’s what I am giving for free (access to anything on my internet connected devices) that concerns me. Just as the freedom of speech is a form government only protection so is having your (digital) ‘papers’ being searched (and shared?) unreasonably and without limits.

 

[OlNate]

I certainly will...as soon as my front-room because a new "marketplace of ideas and expression.

Now, Cap'n, you sell yourself short, based on your participation here I'd say your entire house was a marketplace of ideas and expression...

Besides, you didn't put qualifiers in the statement I bolded. I'm glad my little love tap reminded you that there are, indeed, qualifiers required.

Corporations are people, according to your laws. They have constitutional rights. I'm pretty sure that means you can no more tell them what their TOS can be than my American cousin can hang a picture over your mantle. You've got a fair bit of work ahead of you if you would like to change that, I think - about as much work as those gun grabbers have ahead of them, if they wish to change the 2nd. Until then, well, I think it is what it is, irrespective of any tantrums the "it is what it is" president may deem fit to throw about it.

 

[Vadinho]

Lets make this issue simple for our friends who cannot fully grasp what freedom of speech means. Riddle me this: this site is moderated by people who police our written word for compliance with the rules of this site. We all accept those rules as conditions for being part of this community of people. Is this an attack on free speech as Trump and the right wing accuse Twitter, Amazon, Facebook and others of on a daily basis?

Answer: Of course not.

 

[OlNate]

It’s not what I’m getting for free which concerns me - it’s what I am giving for free (access to anything on my internet connected devices) that concerns me. Just as the freedom of speech is a from government only protection so is having your (digital) ‘papers’ being searched (and shared?) unreasonably and without limits.

That's what the "I agree" button is for. I go in with the assumption that my entire activity is being monitored, and act accordingly...or I don't use the service.

I said this already, the only way around this (maybe, you'll need to trust government) would be to have a nationally owned and run social media platform, paid for exclusively by tax revenue, if you want to get around this. We've convinced ourselves that social media is necessary. It isn't. It's just easy. But easy doesn't mean free, in any of the ways that word "free" gets used.

In order give things away for free, you have to hit the "I Agree" button. That's why it's there.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Now, Cap'n, you sell yourself short, based on your participation here I'd say your entire house was a marketplace of ideas and expression...

Besides, you didn't put qualifiers in the statement I bolded. I'm glad my little love tap reminded you that there are, indeed, qualifiers required.

Corporations are people, according to your laws. They have constitutional rights. I'm pretty sure that means you can no more tell them what their TOS can be than my American cousin can hang a picture over your mantle. You've got a fair bit of work ahead of you if you would like to change that, I think - about as much work as those gun grabbers have ahead of them, if they wish to change the 2nd. Until then, well, I think it is what it is, irrespective of any tantrums the "it is what it is" president may deem fit to throw about it.

OK, but some are ‘corporate people’ which cannot be even civilly sued for the (carefully edited and approved?) content which they expressly allow for presentation (publication?). While it’s true that they did not directly produce that “user“ content (it was given to them freely by an approved user) they did publish it. If I placed a blank sign board on my lawn and someone (who I have no responsibility to name) happened to have written something very offensive on it, should I not be held responsible for displaying that message?

 

[OlNate]

OK, but some are ‘corporate people’ which cannot be even civilly sued for the (carefully edited and approved?) content which they expressly allow for presentation (publication?). While it’s true that they did not directly produce that “user“ content (it was given to them freely by an approved user) they did publish it. If I placed a blank sign board on my lawn and someone (who I have no responsibility to name) happened to have written something very offensive on it, should I not be held responsible for displaying that message?

hehe...oh, don't confuse acknowledging the reality of the current reality and working within it as my expression of undying support for it. There is a LOT that doesn't make sense. As a dirty sorta-socialist, I see a lot of value in nationalizing way more than is, because the corporate entity has way too much power and influence...although this particular issue would probably be pretty low down on my personal priority list, I'd probably be most concerned with getting them the hell out of elections, and make them pay their taxes. But I digress.

Honestly, I would absolutely support the corporations being held accountable for their content. But I would go in the opposite direction - I would want more bullshit removed. There is an inherent danger in intellectual sandboxes. Sure, lots of great things happen, but just as noble ideas can be born, nurtured, and brought to fruition, so can ignoble, dangerous ideas. We saw that just the other day. If that protection hadn't been there, that shit would have been stopped before it ever got off the ground.

So, yes, without exception, let us hold these corporations to account, and force them to remove dangerous bullshit uniformly, whether it be from the extreme right or the extreme left, or any other set of opposing factions. Then Facebook will just be pictures of kids, cooking, and cats again. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[ttwtt78640]

hehe...oh, don't confuse acknowledging the reality of the current reality and working within it as my expression of undying support for it. There is a LOT that doesn't make sense. As a dirty sorta-socialist, I see a lot of value in nationalizing way more than is, because the corporate entity has way too much power and influence...although this particular issue would probably be pretty low down on my personal priority list, I'd probably be most concerned with getting them the hell out of elections, and make them pay their taxes. But I digress.

Honestly, I would absolutely support the corporations being held accountable for their content. But I would go in the opposite direction - I would want more bullshit removed. There is an inherent danger in intellectual sandboxes. Sure, lots of great things happen, but just as noble ideas can be born, nurtured, and brought to fruition, so can ignoble, dangerous ideas. We saw that just the other day. If that protection hadn't been there, that shit would have been stopped before it ever got off the ground.

So, yes, without exception, let us hold these corporations to account, and force them to remove dangerous bullshit uniformly, whether it be from the extreme right or the extreme left, or any other set of opposing factions. Then Facebook will just be pictures of kids, cooking, and cats again. Wouldn't that be nice?

You seem to be missing my point entirely. All the government has to do is to allow civil action to get (and keep) things under control. The only thing preventing that ‘holding to account’ is the government who has offered Section 230 protection (from civil lawsuits) to a very select subset of ‘publishers’. What they may do with impunity (no civil lawsuits are allowed) on the internet, I may not even do (without fear of civil liability) on my front lawn.

 

[Fledermaus]

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.

You left out the real answer..

"None of the above"

 

[OlNate]

You seem to be missing my point

Maybe...my take is that you're saying the protection they receive from liability of what their users post put them in an obligatory position to publish whatever their users want to say. I'm saying they shouldn't have that protection, that they should be treated like any other corporation. Am I still on track here? To be fair, I'm only halfway through my first cup of coffee.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You can't fix stupid.

 

[chuckiechan]

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.

Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are privately traded companies owned by stockholder. In addition they use the public airwaves and the US Mail. They are not sovereign entities operating within our borders.
Free speech of individuals is held to a lower standard.

 

[OlNate]

Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are privately traded companies owned by stockholder. In addition they use the public airwaves and the US Mail. They are not sovereign entities operating within our borders.
Free speech of individuals is held to a lower standard.

Looking for clarification of the bolded....what do you mean by that?

 

[chuckiechan]

You seem to be missing my point entirely. All the government has to do is to allow civil action to get (and keep) things under control. The only thing preventing that ‘holding to account’ is the government who has offered Section 230 protection (from civil lawsuits) to a very select subset of ‘publishers’. What they may do with impunity (no civil lawsuits are allowed) on the internet, I may not even do (without fear of civil liability) on my front lawn.

The point is that Big Tech was exempt from section 230 because "the wise ones" didn't want the nascent internet to be squashed by government regulation. To pretend they are still nascent technology today is foolish. Like the robber barons* of the 1920's, they have had their run and now it is time to change the rules.

*Their power came from killing off competitors, buying off politicians, and election rigging. Just say'n.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Maybe...my take is that you're saying the protection they receive from liability of what their users post put them in an obligatory position to publish whatever their users want to say. I'm saying they shouldn't have that protection, that they should be treated like any other corporation. Am I still on track here? To be fair, I'm only halfway through my first cup of coffee.

Exactly, they should be treated just like any other publisher or even a private citizen with a lawn sign. The idea for offering them special federal legal protection was that they would not edit “user” content based on whether they approved of it (or not). What, exactly, is the (effective?) difference from being a government entity and having complete immunity from civil lawsuits (selectively) guaranteed by the government?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Looking for clarification of the bolded....what do you mean by that?

Here is a simple example: If Twitter allows: “[some person’s name] rapes children and incites riots” to be (anonymously) posted on the internet (without fear of civil lawsuits) then why can’t that same content be presented on a sign placed on my front lawn (without fear of civil lawsuits)?

 

[OlNate]

Exactly, they should be treated just like any other publisher or even a private citizen with a lawn sign. The idea for offering them special federal legal protection was that they would not edit “user” content based on whether they approved of it (or not). What, exactly, is the (effective?) difference from being a government entity and having complete immunity from civil lawsuits (selectively) guaranteed by the government?

Profit and internationality.

Which is why hanging one's 1A hopes on a private corporation is wildly wrong minded.

If the government provided it's own national social media outlet, for it's own citizens only, a few things would be realized:

1) People would definitely get their freedom of speech
2) They would have to prove they are a citizen, which would both ensure that people are commenting under their real identity, and that folks outside the country weren't interfering.
3) Because they would be posting under their real identity, there would be a higher level of accountability for what gets posted, which would hopefully lead to less bullshit.
4) Corporate interests would be removed from the content you are shown - watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix if you haven't already to understand why this is important.

This assumes, of course, that the government can be trusted, and that all the money comes from the taxpayer.

 

[OlNate]

Here is a simple example: If Twitter allows: “[some person’s name] rapes children and incites riots” to be (anonymously) posted on the internet (without fear of civil lawsuits) then why can’t that same content be presented on a sign placed on my front lawn (without fear of civil lawsuits)?

Ok, thanks... I believe my past posts in this thread would indicate alignment with this concern.

 

[AmNat]

Please explain.

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.

 

[OlNate]

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.

Every corporation that operates in the financial realm of these giants significantly impacts American politics, and their profit motive is based entirely upon data mining and advertising. There is no one on earth more competent at discerning profitability than these guys...what you interpret is being political is simply the result of analysis that tells them it's more profitable on the left than the right.

I'm not saying this is great...I'm just saying it's their right as a corporation to be profitable. If you want to change that for them, you're changing that for all corporations. Are you sure this is your position?

 

[Lucky 1]

Dear GOD!!! The polls on this forum just keep getting dumber!!!!

As for your choices....None of the above!