White House colludes with Facebook 1st Amendment violations (1 Viewer)

[element94]

Only right-wingers ignore the ethics and morals of Capitalists asking for their multimillion-dollar bonus while collecting corporate welfare. Analogy much?

I need more, I'm not getting your point.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, I see your dumb argument which has nothing to do with what I said about the federal government. Facebook is removing posts on behalf of the government, making the government infringe on freedom of speech, not Facebook itself necessarily.

Blatantly dishonest assertion.

Facebook, on it’s own, has been flagging and/or removing COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation for many months, going back to last year, when Trump still had an active account and was routinely posting COVID-19 misinformation.

Facebook isn’t doing anything on behalf of our government. Flagging/removing misinformation and disinformation is a public service. A service that the vast majority of Facebook users have been demanding.

But once you get the government involved with removing facebook posts, that's a violation and infringement of the freedom of speech.

The government is not infringing on any citizens free speech rights by working with privately owned social media platforms to identify ignorant misinformation and malicious disinformation.

Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say, or even imply, that the government cannot provide information to a privately owned media platform to consider in making it’s own determination of what material it will allow to be posted on it’s site.

The bill of rights is suppose to restrict government involvement for certain rights which it is doing now Which is bad for everyone.

Allowing harmful lies to remain on social media platforms is bad for everyone.

Facebook’s (along with other social media platforms) flagging and/removing of misinformation and disinformation is a necessary and very valuable public service to the billions of people around the world that daily rely on their platforms for fact based information.

Bottom line truth of the right’s faux outrage over social media’s increased scrutiny of COVID-19 fake news posts is that it’s just a cover for their extreme butt hurt at the proliferation of malicious, anti American, anti patriotic being flagged/censored by Facebook and other platforms.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Blatantly dishonest assertion.

Facebook, on it’s own, has been flagging and/or removing COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation for many months, going back to last year, when Trump still had an active account and was routinely posting COVID-19 misinformation.

Facebook isn’t doing anything on behalf of our government. Flagging/removing misinformation and disinformation is a public service. A service that the vast majority of Facebook users have been demanding.

The government is not infringing on any citizens free speech rights by working with privately owned social media platforms to identify ignorant misinformation and malicious disinformation.

Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say, or even imply, that the government cannot provide information to a privately owned media platform to consider in making it’s own determination of what material it will allow to be posted on it’s site.

Allowing harmful lies to remain on social media platforms is bad for everyone.

Facebook’s (along with other social media platforms) flagging and/removing of misinformation and disinformation is a necessary and very valuable public service to the billions of people around the world that daily rely on their platforms for fact based information.

Bottom line truth of the right’s faux outrage over social media’s increased scrutiny of COVID-19 fake news posts is that it’s just a cover for their extreme butt hurt at the proliferation of malicious, anti American, anti patriotic being flagged/censored by Facebook and other platforms.

As previously mentioned, Facebook is a state actor on behalf of the government. And any state actor is to comply with any restrictions placed on it the same as the government, such as freedom of speech.

Using a third party to filter free speech infringement will likely not pass scrutiny from the courts.

 

[US&THEM]

Probably the only thing we agree on. Facebook, certainly cares if you need Facebook, as they are a business. They need people on Facebook to continue to make money.

FB has over 2 billion persons on their service, they are just fine.

 

[US&THEM]

As previously mentioned, Facebook is a state actor on behalf of the government. And any state actor is to comply with any restrictions placed on it the same as the government, such as freedom of speech.

Using a third party to filter free speech infringement will likely not pass scrutiny from the courts.

No they are not and you cannot find anything that states it.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

FB has over 2 billion persons on their service, they are just fine.

Since they are a publicly traded company, it's something that concerns shareholders and board of directors. Just to say it doesn't matter because of losing a supposed few Facebookers is not taking in account how a business is run.

 

[US&THEM]

Since they are a publicly traded company, it's something that concerns shareholders and board of directors. Just to say it doesn't matter because of losing a supposed few Facebookers is not taking in account how a business is run.

Which again goes against your “state actor” nonsense.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Which again goes against your “state actor” nonsense.

Corporate personhood has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons by several Supreme Court rulings. Giving rights usually afforded to Americans in some cases to also include businesses and corporations. Such as freedom of religion to the Hobby Lobby case for instance.
Extending this corporate personhood to Facebook as a state actor on behalf of the federal government would also be something to be considered.

 

[US&THEM]

Corporate personhood has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons by several Supreme Court rulings. Giving rights usually afforded to Americans in some cases to also include businesses and corporations. Such as freedom of religion to the Hobby Lobby case for instance.
Extending this corporate personhood to Facebook as a state actor on behalf of the federal government would also be something to be considered.

The state actor makes zero sense and there is nothing to show there is such a thing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

As previously mentioned, Facebook is a state actor on behalf of the government. And any state actor is to comply with any restrictions placed on it the same as the government, such as freedom of speech.

Using a third party to filter free speech infringement will likely not pass scrutiny from the courts.

No matter how formally you present your belief, it’s still nothing but a pile of

 

[Helix]

There is no right to post on a message board. See you all again tomorrow, as we learn once again that there is no right to post on a message board.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Corporate personhood has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons by several Supreme Court rulings. Giving rights usually afforded to Americans in some cases to also include businesses and corporations. Such as freedom of religion to the Hobby Lobby case for instance.
Extending this corporate personhood to Facebook as a state actor on behalf of the federal government would also be something to be considered.

That’s some Olympics level contortions of facts. If one didn’t know better, they might believe that you actually know what you’re talking about.

 

[Deuce]

The Constitution is quite clear on the government suppressing free speech in which is colluding with Facebook to do so. Same with Trump deleting comments on his personal Twitter account he had before he was president and the same with AOC deleting posts off her account as well.

Are you aware that Facebook is not the government?

AOC can delete her own tweets, why would you think otherwise?

 

[Deuce]

Wait, I think I figured it out.

Conservatives think the government is ordering Facebook to take down certain posts and they think Facebook has some kind of legal obligation to comply, and that Facebook is doing so without question.

You just can't help these people.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Go show the government ORDER that is FORCING anything. Mmmkay?

As I understand the Facebook ToS, EVERY user of Facebook has the right to "flag" posts that they consider to be problematic.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Facebook is a state actor, acting on behalf of the U.S. government. In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution. Which includes violating the freedom of speech.



Several Supreme court decisions, such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision that recognize that corporations are often considered as individuals than just private companies. And are often given constitutional rights such as freedom of speech.

​

Actually you have missed out the key element and that is that there be some sort of contractual arrangement between "the government" and "the state actor" (IOW, "the government" has to be paying "the state actor" to do what "the state actor" is doing).

 

[eohrnberger]

Actually you have missed out the key element and that is that there be some sort of contractual arrangement between "the government" and "the state actor" (IOW, "the government" has to be paying "the state actor" to do what "the state actor" is doing).

I suppose it's how you view the relationship between congress and the social media companies. Below is an argument as how you could view the social media companies behaving as 'State Actors'.

​

Save the Constitution From Big Tech​

Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation.​

By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld​

Opinion | Save the Constitution From Big Tech

Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation.

www.wsj.com

​

Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.​

​

It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.​

​

The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action. In Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson (1956), they found state action in private union-employer closed-shop agreements—which force all employees to join the union—because Congress had passed a statute immunizing such agreements from liability under state law. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association(1989), the court again found state action in private-party conduct—drug tests for company employees—because federal regulations immunized railroads from liability if they conducted those tests. In both cases, as with Section 230, the federal government didn’t mandate anything; it merely pre-empted state law, protecting certain private parties from lawsuits if they engaged in the conduct Congress was promoting.​

​

Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”​

​

Either Section 230 or congressional pressure alone might be sufficient to create state action. The combination surely is. Suppose a Republican Congress enacted a statute giving legal immunity to any private party that obstructs access to abortion clinics. Suppose further tat Republican congressmen explicitly threatened private companies with punitive laws if they fail to act against abortion clinics. If those companies did as Congress demands, then got an attaboy from lawmakers, progressives would see the constitutional problem.​

​

This is at least one of the basis on which Trump's lawyers' law suit stands, Congress' demands for more social media censorship and their application of the carrot and stick. Well have to see what judgement the court finds in that law suit.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Isn't it not a crime for a President to collude, or is that only with Russians?

To me, all it says is that Biden is encouraging FB to remove disinformation about Covid vaccines. If that's colluding, they need to do way more of it. There is no reason for millions of Americans to be sharing stuff they know nothing about, where much of it is just plain lies. FB is toooooo big. It has a reach that most of us can't even understand.

If I could rule in my imaginary role, I would shut it down completely. At least with networks, they can be sued. So anyone can see the dilemma the US medical teams are up against.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As previously mentioned, Facebook is a state actor on behalf of the government. And any state actor is to comply with any restrictions placed on it the same as the government, such as freedom of speech.

Using a third party to filter free speech infringement will likely not pass scrutiny from the courts.

Unfortunately you do not appear to actually understand the LEGAL meaning of "state actor" - especially the requisite preconditions.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I suppose it's how you view the relationship between congress and the social media companies. Below is an argument as how you could view the social media companies behaving as 'State Actors'.

​

Save the Constitution From Big Tech​

Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation.​

By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld​

Opinion | Save the Constitution From Big Tech

Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation.

www.wsj.com

​

Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.​

​

It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.​

​

The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action. In Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson (1956), they found state action in private union-employer closed-shop agreements—which force all employees to join the union—because Congress had passed a statute immunizing such agreements from liability under state law. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association(1989), the court again found state action in private-party conduct—drug tests for company employees—because federal regulations immunized railroads from liability if they conducted those tests. In both cases, as with Section 230, the federal government didn’t mandate anything; it merely pre-empted state law, protecting certain private parties from lawsuits if they engaged in the conduct Congress was promoting.​

​

Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”​

​

Either Section 230 or congressional pressure alone might be sufficient to create state action. The combination surely is. Suppose a Republican Congress enacted a statute giving legal immunity to any private party that obstructs access to abortion clinics. Suppose further tat Republican congressmen explicitly threatened private companies with punitive laws if they fail to act against abortion clinics. If those companies did as Congress demands, then got an attaboy from lawmakers, progressives would see the constitutional problem.​

​

This is at least one of the basis on which Trump's lawyers' law suit stands, Congress' demands for more social media censorship and their application of the carrot and stick. Well have to see what judgement the court finds in that law suit.

Not only do I appreciate you sharing that opinion, but I also appreciate the fact that you are sharing it as an opinion rather than simply regurgitating it as "fact".

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Unfortunately you do not appear to actually understand the LEGAL meaning of "state actor" - especially the requisite preconditions.

Supreme Court case: MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP v. HALLECK

Under this Court’s cases, a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances— including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, see, e.g., Jackson, 419 U. S., at 352–354; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action, see, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982); or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity, see, e.g., Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922, 941–942 (1982).

Private entity being Facebook working with the White House in flagging and removing posts related to Covid-19.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

 

[eohrnberger]

Interesting emails.

We Now Know Why Facebook May Have Censored the Lab Leak Theory

townhall.com

"Bill Hall . . . is standing by to discuss this with HHS and WH comms"

Who's 'Bill Hall'? A Facebook employee?
What would Facebook CEO Zuck have to do with WH (White House?) Comms (Communications?) ?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Supreme Court case: MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP v. HALLECK

Under this Court’s cases, a private entity can qualify as a state actor in a few limited circumstances— including, for example, (i) when the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public function, see, e.g., Jackson, 419 U. S., at 352–354; (ii) when the government compels the private entity to take a particular action, see, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1004–1005 (1982); or (iii) when the government acts jointly with the private entity, see, e.g., Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U. S. 922, 941–942 (1982).

Private entity being Facebook working with the White House in flagging and removing posts related to Covid-19.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

Let me fix that sentence for you.

Private entity being Facebook working with the White House in flagging and removing LIES related to Covid-19.

During a national health emergency, I would want/expect my government to look out for the well being of it's citizens. If going after lies and miss-information to achieve that goal is what they have to do, good for them.

 

[jimbo]

The Constitution is quite clear on the government suppressing free speech in which is colluding with Facebook to do so. Same with Trump deleting comments on his personal Twitter account he had before he was president and the same with AOC deleting posts off her account as well.

Trump deleting personal and AOC deleting posts off her account are NOT the same as government supressing free speech.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not only do I appreciate you sharing that opinion, but I also appreciate the fact that you are sharing it as an opinion rather than simply regurgitating it as "fact".

Interesting statements from Psaki.

The White House wants Facebook to act quicker in removing posts containing vaccine misinformation.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Facebook takes too long to remove "violative posts" during a press briefing. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said during the briefing that misinformation is slowing the pace of vaccinations in the US.

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove violative posts," Psaki said. "Posts that will be within their policies' removal often remain up for days. That's too long. The information spreads too quickly."

The White House isn't letting Facebook off the hook for allowing misinformation to spread on its platforms

Does this not appear to be demands for censorship from the federal government to a private company?
Is this not the definition of when the private company becomes a 'state actor'?