Posted on 08/06/2018 8:47:29 AM PDT by Enlightened1
The limited editorial that is allowed for a company to be considered a platform instead of a publisher is meant for them to remove illegal content (like child porn). It is not meant to allow them to take political positions on user content.
You either have first amendment protection as a speaker/publisher with an editorial process or you are a platform that isn’t responsible for the speech on it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
They should be forced to pick one.
Here’s the deal, dummies who are like “it’s a private company” — censoring certain views based on politics means that Facebook is a publisher not a platform and therefore they should have their liability waiver on illegal user posted content revoked.
That’s a good point that I hadn’t thought of. Yes, they cannot be both immune from liability for their content as a platform, and also allowed to censor content as a publisher.
I believe AT&T is a private business fulfilling the legal requirements of a public utility. Thus, this does not apply. Until social media is legally recognized as such, they are private.
All true but it isn’t a 1st Amendment issue
Drudge had this to say to Alex and others
Flashback: Matt Drudge Warns Not to ‘Get Famous’ on YouTube, ‘Google’s Hell Pit’
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/06/flashback-matt-drudge-warns-not-to-get-famous-on-youtube-googles-hell-pit/
This needs to be loudly labeled “Censorship Nazi Style” (because of leftards public education whitewashing “Censorship COMMUNIST-style” gets too many blank looks).
Time to BOYCOTT these “NAZI-STYLE CESNSORS”
Thanks for the reply.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, it would take a congressional act to designate Facebook as a public utility in order to require Facebook to carry all Facebook posts regardless of the content.
Congress has passed numerous bills under public accommodations to prevent discrimination. Could the same reasoning be applied to accommodating free speech/political speech?
I don’t know, but it appears to me that public accommodation/free speech could be applied to the social media.
The courts could also move against social media under the numerous reasonable alternatives court rulings when looking at business. The test asks if there are reasonable alternatives or choices available to the public. I forgot the legal terminology for this court test.
Overall, it’s an interesting discussion.
If a plaintiff alleges violation of both state and Federal law in a Federal case, then the Federal district court judge construes both state and Federal law.
The Alex Jones people can go to Federal court and include among their claims that the banning was illegal under both Federal and state law (California, most importantly), and the Federal court will construe state law as part of its analysis.
Google and Twitter and Spotify too per www.naturalnews.com
New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/infowars-alex-jones-apple-facebook-spotify.html
Google, Facebook and Twitter should be deemed utilities.
Then they should be broken up like Ma Bell was.
They can do it any time th y want.
For sure he last time you don’t have right TO USE SOME
ONE ELSES PLATFORM. You have a right to GET YOUR OWN.
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.