Posted on 12/02/2019 7:37:26 AM PST by fightin kentuckian
How does what you say apply to the Main Stream Media, i.e., liberal newspapers and television networks, that slant whatever they want and ignore conflicting opinions? Freedom of the press in the First Amendment protects them from government interference.
Is Facebook simply a modern version of the newspapers? Newspapers control which letters from readers they chose to publish. Is Facebook (which I despise) simply doing something similar by deleting posts (think letters) they do not like?
If the government has made an agreement with Facebook and other large online opinion sites requiring them to be an open forums (which I have heard somewhere) then maybe there is a way to stop their censorship of posts.
The United States should put forth the position that Terms of Service which infringe upon protected free speech rights are null and void, with the normal exceptions for "speech" already understood to be of the illegal kind.
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.
When their communications infrastructure constitutes a significant portion of all public speech, the law needs to require that they carry *ALL* traffic, including that which they find objectionable, so long as it is not illegal speech.
We cannot allow communications companies the ability to decide what speech is acceptable and what speech is not. Only the courts should be solicited for that determination.
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.
Free Republic is effectively a club, and not a general communications platform for the larger public. Clubs can do what they want, but before you assert that Google is a "club", or Facebook is a "club", we must acknowledge that any organization open to all the public is not a "club."
I would go so far as to say any organization carrying communications traffic for a million users, cannot be allowed to be regarded as a club for the sake of restricting freedom of speech.
The courts are wrong about that. They just made that sh*t up. The founders never envisioned that indecent material be regarded as "speech." That's a later day fabrication.
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.
I've said this repeatedly. If private companies aree allowed to regulate speech. Foreign governments will *FORCE* them to regulate speech. Not only foreign governments, but an Obama like government will force them to regulate speech by threatening them with investigations or other Federal pressure.
It is clear to me that in order to protect freedom, large communications carrying companies cannot be allowed to regulate speech. There is no other way to keep this government and foreign governments from regulating speech unless it is simply forbidden by American law.
If the law requires you to carry speech, even "hate" speech, the foreign countries cannot compel you to censor speech they don't like. They will have to do it themselves within their own boarders, but it is ridiculous to tolerate foreign governments (or ours) dictating to companies what speech to allow inside the Jurisdiction of the United States.
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.
Yes, exactly. Allowing them to censor speech will inevitably blur the lines between state and "private".
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.
Exactly. This should be our position on the subject.
But the problem is who defines what unlawful content is.
I have no doubt they will try to define "unlawful" in the broadest context, no doubt citing Canadian or European laws that have ridiculously expansive definitions of "hate" speech, but only American law should apply, and that American law should be any speech protected by the First Amendment.
That includes hate speech and vicious mean speech.
We should tell the Europeans and Canada, "F*** your speech laws! American companies, and foreign companies operating in America, must carry speech you don't like, and if you don't like it, you can cut your nation off from our internet!"
I don't think that is the dominant issue at all. My position is that wherever the public gathers, there too do Americans have freedom of speech rights.
So far as i'm concerned, it is long past the point we should have busted these organizations wide open, and *FORCED* them to carry both sides of the political spectrum in their news coverage and programing. So far as I'm concerned, conservatives have a right to the broadcasting networks too.
Is Facebook simply a modern version of the newspapers?
No. Facebook is a communications system.
If the government has made an agreement with Facebook and other large online opinion sites requiring them to be an open forums (which I have heard somewhere) then maybe there is a way to stop their censorship of posts.
The Government simply needs to define them as a "carrier." They are currently acting like "Publishers", but they are getting the protection of "carriers" (meaning they are not legally responsible for any of the speech they carry), but they are regulating speech as would a "Publisher" which is legally responsible for any speech they carry.
They are hiding behind a loop hole in the law, and one which they went to a great deal of trouble to buy from our corrupt system.
We need to force them into the legal category of "carriers", and quite allowing them discretion to control public speech.
Which is a result of the people voting in those leftists who appoint the interpreters of the Constitution.
I've said this repeatedly. If private companies aree allowed to regulate speech. Foreign governments will *FORCE* them to regulate speech.
And yet as said, Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act "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."
If the law requires you to carry speech, even "hate" speech, the foreign countries cannot compel you to censor speech they don't like. They will have to do it themselves within their own boarders, but it is ridiculous to tolerate foreign governments (or ours) dictating to companies what speech to allow inside the Jurisdiction of the United States.
but only American law should apply, and that American law should be any speech protected by the First Amendment.
Well, we effectively have foreigners dictating to companies what speech to allow.
We cannot allow communications companies the ability to decide what speech is acceptable and what speech is not. Only the courts should be solicited for that determination.
Yet liberals would work to outlaw politically incorrect speech under the rubric of this being "hate speech.
Free Republic is effectively a club, and not a general communications platform for the larger public. Clubs can do what they want, but before you assert that Google is a "club", or Facebook is a "club", we must acknowledge that any organization open to all the public is not a "club."
Actually in both cases users cannot post without an account, and which requires assent to terms, varying in degree. However, FR does not present itself as a forum for all, which FB does, though in reality it is also censorious. Toward the wrong side that is.
I think we are essentially in agreement on all the important points. Freedom of speech is under assault and if it is successfully stopped, this will have dire results for the nation.
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.