Posted on 12/02/2019 7:37:26 AM PST by fightin kentuckian
Some time ago I shared a post on FB that read: 449,000 Californians turned down jury duty because they were not citizens...but they were registered voters. Let that sink in! I posted this some time ago and I was just going back through my posts and found that FB had put a warning over it which read: False Information, Checked by independent fact checkers. And then there was a button labelled "see why". Click the button and a box pops up and says "Fact check from Politifact, False: No evidence that 449,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in California. "
Did someone rat or did the FB discover this post through some sort of keyword search?
“They were unaware that any entity other than government could actually suppress public speech. “
LOL! Try going into the local church back then and commit blasphemy!
“When we speak of censorship of public speech, we are referring to the ability of the public to speak out to other members of the public, such as at a public meeting.”
So you agree that TV stations, newspapers, blogs, etc., have the right to censor speech?
Television stations ought not be allowed to censor. Newspapers and blogs are different matters.
But I really don't feel like wading into the weeds of this discussion. The primary focus here is multi billion dollar corporations which can have a serious influence on Federal elections, and it is precisely because of that influence that they should not be allowed to control what the public says.
If they didn't have that ability to influence, they would not be a threat to the nation, but they do, and so they are.
I got it that the courts made PDJT keep the harassers on his twit feed because he is POTUS and talked about political issues, but really, twit and fauxbook, etc ARE the new public square. I left fauxbook in part because it’s becoming TOO integral to communication- the group I work out with coordinates meetups through a fb group, the support/integral medical information I was getting for a medical condition was only available through fb groups, even my Church was communicating important info through fb.
I am concerned that private companies are obtaining so. much. power. over everyday communication.
“Some time ago I shared a post on FB
And nothing happened about it until today?
You just let it slide for a few years and got mad about it today? Yeah, seems legit”.
WTF is that supposed to mean. So now you’re lobbing passive aggressive bombs. Makes no sense at all to be attacking me for no reason. Just so you know, I posted it a couple of weeks ago and I just noticed that it had been censored. Im sure youre very relieved to hear this. FO
“Facebook can sensor you all they want. They are a private corporation. If you do not like their policies, go elsewhere.”
To a point. Could a Democrat-loving AT&T have cut off all telephone lines to Reagan’s campaign in 1980 and tell them to campaign through the US mail instead? Could a Democrat-loving private power company cut off all power to Reagan’s campaign headquarters in 1980 and tell them to buy generators if they needed electricity?
If you answer yes, do you REALLY think that the Democrats would have tolerated the reverse, had Jimmy Carter been cut off by these ‘private’ companies?
There does come a point when alternatives are not practical or competitive, which is the case for both Google and Facebook - and at that point, these types private corporate actions can be seen as in-kind contributions to campaigns, which is illegal. That is the argument - but I don’t think our side has the brains to even make that point.
What it comes down to is that half the People in this Country do not give a damn if an Illegal Invader Vote gets their guy Elected. It’s all about attaining and retaining power.
Just look at the gnashing of Teeth when the Citizenship question was going to be included in the Census.
I ask myself, who the hell are these people, why do they have no common sense and belief in the Constitution and the Rule of Law? Then I realize they are all around me.
The Democrat Party screams if anyone mentions instituting Voter ID (It’s RACIST you know) and the Republican Party looks the other way.
Franklin had it right, a Republic if you can keep it. Well, it was good while it lasted.
This is exactly correct. The law is not important to them. What is important to them is gaining and holding power, and they do not care how many laws they have to ignore to make this happen.
And it has been this way for a very long time.
I believe that Voter Fraud should be a Capital Offense.
Of course, many have no idea what Capital Offense means. LOL
First, on a public venue the 1st Amendment guarantees you can say most (not like, "it's a bomb" in a crowded area) ANYTHING you want, but not on private property, and thus liberals can be zotted here.
Second, parroting false or dubious, unsubstantiated claims only harms the "conservative" movement, as it esp. does in the Christian section of this (I have some emails...), since it makes up look gullible and careless, and liars.
In general, research before you make such a claim, and state as factual what you can substantiate or at least make a good sustainable case for.
Dan, you’re some kind of special, self important, condescending, jerk. FU very much. Have a nice day.
Very good point about AT&T. The difference is that AT&T was, and is classified by the government as a “Utility”, and therefore under a different set of rules/laws. It basically has to operate as if part of the government, so no, they could not have cut off the phone lines of a political undesirable.
Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc are not YET considered a “Utility” and so are still private corporations who can sensor “Free Speech”.
They probably should be, though.
Like Telephone wires?
Seems to me the telephone companies were not allowed to discriminate against people regarding what speech they conveyed across the telephone companies private property.
We need to apply that same standard to all the larger carriers of public speech nowadays.
Not a problem. So far as i'm concerned, Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter, and so forth are all "utilities", and they should be *FORCED* with a capital *F* to carry all traffic regardless of content.
Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc are not YET considered a “Utility” and so are still private corporations who can sensor “Free Speech”. They probably should be, though.
They absolutely should be. Too much public communication is carried by these utilities. It's way past time we allowed their censorship to hide behind "private" property rights.
Actually commercial communication companies like Google, Verizon and Comcast actually state in their ToS that certain forms of speech are prohibited. For example, Comporium Communications, like the rest, has a SERVICE AGREEMENT in which it states, Objectionable content. Using our services to post, transmit or disseminate any content that is, in our opinion, abusive, libelous, slanderous, defamatory, incites hatred or is otherwise offensive or objectionable.
Likewise, Comcast Cloud Solutions Terms of Service (for businesses) states, in part,
BY USING THE CLOUD SOLUTIONS MARKETPLACE YOU AGREE NOT TO post, upload, or distribute any User Submission (as defined in Section 8 below) or other content that is defamatory....inaccurate... or that a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive,...threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.
And as usual with these terms of service consents, this contains some ambiguous language( that would allow broad censorship (cf. content that is offensive or objectionable) which can be interpreted to place FR in violation, and you/us as users, now or in the future.
See my post 87 in the thread Christian News Site ‘LifeSite’ Blacklisted by Web Host for more on this.
Your freedom of speech in the public arena, which SCOTUS has affirmed as "open fora" for speech (although allowing the Gov. to restrict it to certain times and or places if necessary for order) does not mean that private persons or commercial enterprises must report all or whatever you say. That requirement would be more akin to the liberal fairness doctrine.
Thus FR can ban certain posters as well as certain types *vulgar, racist, etc.) speech. Thank God. And having no advertisers helps it to be politically incorrect.
Dan, you’re some kind of special, self important, condescending, jerk. FU very much. Have a nice day.
Rather, what I expressed is only reasonable. Integrity and verifiable Truth should be a requisite for credibility, esp. for a Christian, and a conservative in a war against the devil and His proxy media servants, versus carelessly passing along dubious or false reports as facts, and which error I have too often myself committed in my life.
And FR itself is engaged in a moral ideological war, and carelessly passing along dubious or false reports as facts provides ammo for the lying Left to impugn the credibility of conservative venues such as FR, and there is enough verifiable Truth that exposes the duplicity and deception of the Left without resorting to false reports.
And so in a word, yes, we should have higher standards.
In my above post I was broadly referring to communication companies as private businesses (and I was actually complaining about its terms), and not as public utilities regulated by the government so that phone service cannot be denied even to the KKK.
However, that does not mean freedom from any "content moderation" at all. And before we advocate social media be treated as a public utility we need to understand that this can result in even more censorship of conservative content, if the like of Warren have their way. Who would expand the reasonable moral censorship of the FCC to forbid what they hypocritically define as "hate speech.
First, presently, the FCC does have enforcement responsibilities to censor content in certain limited instances.
For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. -The FCC and Freedom of Speech; https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech
Now see, Democrat Candidates Pledge Big Tech ‘Hate Speech’ Crackdown and imagine how these haters of God and moral conservators would expand FCC censorship to be more like that of countries like Germany and France, who as this article states ,
impose million-dollar fines on them if they fail to take down hate speech (as defined by European law) within 24 hours. On pain of even bigger fines, the EU has forced Facebook, Google, and Twitter in to sign a “voluntary” anti-hate-speech code. When incorporated into the platform’s Terms of Service, these European speech codes can result in worldwide removal of content. Although it’s not yet the law, the fact that Facebook, Google, and Twitter engage in censorship at the behest of foreign states, rather than our own, should be viewed as making the situation worse, not better, from the perspective of protecting American constitutional freedoms.
In addition, and related to the ToS censorship i cited in my last post,
Second, in policing what people say online, the Big Tech platforms are also acting under pressure from, and with significant encouragement by, Congress. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — the most important statutory provision governing the Internet — gives online platforms immunity if they censor speech perceived as hateful or dangerous. Section 230 was deliberately enacted to encourage the major platforms to censor speech that Congress knew it could not constitutionally censor directly, and members of Congress have repeatedly threatened to penalize Facebook and Google if they don’t engage in such censorship. This alone should be viewed as turning Facebook and Google into state actors when they block the expression of opinions they deem too offensive or dangerous. Jed Rubenfeld, The Right Way to Regulate Big Tech; https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/big-tech-regulation-right-way/
Under which we have the problem,
Moreover, the most influential definitions of hate speech used online — which protect designated identity groups or center on “protected characteristics” such as race, religion, and sexuality — do indeed disfavor certain speakers and viewpoints. While “Muslims can’t be trusted” or “Muslims are murderers” would almost certainly be hate speech under Facebook’s policies as a generalization attacking an entire religious group, “Trump supporters are racist” or “Trump supporters are murderers” would not be, because those statements don’t target a “protected characteristic.” A Facebook page representing an online group of mothers opposed to “Drag Queen Story Hour” was blocked from Facebook; one of the posts on the page described individuals who engage in certain conduct as “perverts.” But posts describing the woman who founded this group as “a rage-filled bigot” are protected. ibid^
As a practical matter, regulating speech even on phone lines - which the Left would love to do to us - but which is not reviewed first and seldom recorded by the recipient to be passed on (and which in some states may not be allowed without consent by both parties), is much less feasible to forbidding forms of speech posted on the Internet.
Presently, under the Restoring Internet Freedom Order,
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) returns to the light-touch regulatory scheme that enabled the internet to develop and thrive for nearly two decades. The Commission restores the classification of broadband internet access service as a lightly-regulated information service and reinstates the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband internet access service. - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/02/22/2018-03464/restoring-internet-freedom
Perhaps the solution is to fobide censorship of as proposed Jed Rubenfeld in the National review:
Facebook and Google should of course be able to exclude unlawful content, such as solicitations of criminal conduct, but they should be prohibited from policing the constitutionally protected expression of ideas. Government regulators would not supervise this prohibition; rather, it would be a legal right, enforceable in court.
But the problem is who defines what unlawful content is.
More reading relevant to the issue: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180822/11505440486/how-regulating-platforms-content-moderation-means-regulating-speech-even-yours.shtml
This is because the METHOD of putting out information is different.
You can BUY all the paper and ink you want; you can POST anything on the 'net; but you canNOT use up the electronic spectrum willy-nilly; as there is only so much of it available.
PeeWee Herman would reply...
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.