Posted on 07/13/2016 8:13:08 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Today the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.
Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.
As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.
Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination. However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.
As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:
“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”
Muise went on to explain:
“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts. Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”
David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:
“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”
Yerushalmi concluded:
“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West. Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”
Will they censor anti Christian speech? Didn’t think so.
Ping
I don't agree with Facebook, etc. But it's a private business - they can do what they want.
How about anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Caucasian, anti-family, anti-life, anti-Second Amendment...speech? Can they “censor” that too?
When did section 230 become law? Whoever voted for it should be grilled like a porkchop by the voters
They have the right to add, delete, and censor anyone using their product. Those who wish to do something about it can use the power of the market to drop their accounts, and find a new, or create a new, alternative.
Go for it AFLC! Kick that Camel’s nose out from under the edge of our tent, and chain it up over in the sand pit it belongs.
There could be blowback from this lawsuit...could eventually lead to a determination that the FCC has jurisdiction over the internet. Bad idea.
I wonder if Twitter will bake me a cake against same sex marriage?
I know it’s not a bakery, but the whole company has baked brains.
And, if successful, what is to stop someone from suing Free Republic for not allowing certain speech? Yet, some people applaud this lawsuit.
Facebook servers are private but they use the internet to deliver the information. These AT&T, Verizon etc. internet systems are owned by stockholders. Facebook is one part of the informatin delivery team. People with Facebook accounts have a contract whether written or implied, that the information is based on free speech rights. The government cannot regulate free speech and the social media sights must abide by their contract with their users.
There would be no need to sue a small website like this. The FCC would ‘regulate’ it out of operation with exorbitant fees, reporting requirements, etc.
The “social media” moguls are being enlisted by the government to force us to accept our new masters.
IDK about that. If they have a business that is making wedding cakes, can they discriminate between cake users?
They should be able to do what they want, but CA won’t allow any private business to discriminate for any reason, so why let Facebook get away with it?
Not in CA private business can’t. And Christian bakers anywhere can’t.
IDK about that. If they have a business that is making wedding cakes, can they discriminate between cake users?
Yes, they are a private company-—but they have to be truthful and not commit fraud.
They have to advertise in BIG PRINT and UPFRONT that they CENSOR CHRISTIANITY and BAN certain 1st Amendment Rights and promote ISLAM.
They should have to also state that they promote fascism, mutilation of women, pederasty, sodomy, and misogyny (all muslim virtues), and the persecution and killing of Christians.
All persons who log in should be required to read the above statements, so fraud and misperceptions and lies are not perpetuated by users of their fascist sites.
So, a California store cannot kick someone out the door for having no money to pay for a product? A business can't refuse service to a Cruz supporter? A private company cannot mandate a dress code that includes no political messaging?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.