I understand why we can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
I understand why I can’t yell “I’m going to kill you!” to someone in a bar.
But aside from a few exceptions, Free Speech means I get to say stuff even if you wish I wouldn’t.
Now, if we looked at the Constitution as originally envisioned, only CONGRESS would be blocked from telling me what I can and cannot say. But I believe the Supreme Court broadened this. I think it’s wrong for Facebook to block people from expressing their opinions. Even if Facebook doesn’t like those opinions.
Facebook should be there to collect ad revenue. It should not be there to control and manipulate people’s thinking. But it is.
Exactly. Facebook censors should make but one decision about a comment:
1) Let it pass.
2) Call the cops.
To clarify, you can yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.
But, you will have to face the consequences if there is not really a fire and people are “injured.”
etc.
We have to stop saying “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” because that is false.
>>But aside from a few exceptions, Free Speech means I get to say stuff even if you wish I wouldn’t.
Fakebook is not an American company (at least one exec ended his US citizenship the day before the stock went public) and is not a defender of rights as established in the US Constitution.
EUSSR and China and elsewhere have different notions of what you can and cannot say, “we” must play by those rules.
Platforms like Facebook want to be prrotected from lawsuits about content, yet want to censor content for political impact. They cannot have both.
I would look into antitrust laws in regards to Facebook, Twitter, and Google working together to control what is allowed on social media. Gas companies cannot collude to set the price of gasoline as that is their product, hence social media companies cannot collude to suppress certain types of speech as speech is their product.
All of these issues and FB are ultimately about private property, not speech.
It is not the place of the federal govt to regulate what you can or can't say in a movie theater or bar...or on FB. It is the domain of the theater owner, the bar owner, and the owner of FB to regulate what happens on their property, or not. In turn, if these private property owners exercise their rights in a manner at odds with the voluntary users of this property, it is the prerogative of the users to disengage. That's freedom and liberty.
Now, what kind of the patrons whine and moan and run to the government when the business owner upsets them? Often it is a liberal, most recently someone upset when a cake store won't bake them a cake. Many Deplorables bemoaned this cake episode, citing the rights of business owners. And rightly so, regardless of anyone's thoughts on gay marriage.
So it is a curious episode, when alleged conservatives suddenly become lovers of an expansionist interpretation of the Commerce Clause and demand government intervention with regard to FB, Twitter, Amazon, and other collections of servers and networks with which people engage VOLUNTARILY. What people may be missing, is that the beast Leviathan that they want to empower to break up some leftist technology company will be the same monster that breaks up Breitbart, Freerepublic, or any other similar entity when the a Dem come back to power.
Indeed, the same arguments being used by the right to regulate FB et al were used by former Sen Al Frankenstein to regulate FB et al. When conservatives and Sen Groper are philosophical cousins, something is wrong. As for me, I will stick with the Founders and morality and not bow to the liberal god of feelings and expediency.
Although not particularly applicable to FaceBook, (a private entity), "Congress" is not just the 535 members who sit in session at the US Capitol, but also all the agencies, departments, appointees, employees, etc. which were created by Congress.
Example: The FCC and so-called "Fairness Doctrine" (RIP 1949-1987, thank you Reagan) ...
Congress created the FCC ... the FCC operates under the aegis of Congress ... the FCC imposed the "Fairness Doctrine" which enforced limitation on freedom of speech within the realm of broadcasting.
"Broadcasting" is a form of communication, an extension of the (printing) Press, which was the foremost communication technology of its day at the time of our Founding.
Broadcasting is no more a 'special' form of communication than any other media technology thruout history: the spoken word, the written word, carved tablets, painting, sculpture, grunts, barks, meows .. etc
Clearly the "Fairness Doctrine" was an abridgement of the First Amendment, since the FCC established it, and the FCC is an agency of Congress. Thereby, Congress is fully responsible for this abomination which lasted some 48 years!
~ MM ~
Facebook cannot guarantee 1st amendment rights. It has no obligation to do so. Its not a government agency.
However facebook can be treated as a monopoly and be broken up or “regulated.”
IMHO, facebook is doomed already.
That is not a crime, but not recommended. You could be held liable for injury to someone.
I understand why I can’t yell “I’m going to kill you!” to someone in a bar.
That is not a crime either, but can be used as evidence against you, if you carry out the action.
Free Speech is never a crime. Related actions might be. The Leftists are trying to make Free Speech a crime by associating it with other things.