Posted on 07/07/2021 2:55:00 PM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
Can people put their hand on another person's mouth and censor them?
Can corporations like Twitter, FB, etc, operate like platforms and publishers simultaneously?
Can they get the perks of a publisher (saying no to essentially a letter to the editor written for all to see, but in this case on Twitter, FB, etc, as newspapers can do this) while claiming they are a platform?
If you have fallible humans that are biased against Trump, how can they be trusted to be "fact checkers"? Where can we find 100% impartial people? If pro-Biden people say a Tweet from Trump is misinformation and pro-Trump people say a Tweet from Biden is misinformation, the only impartial route would be for Twitter (or for that matter FB, etc) to say they won't charge either side with positing so-called "misinformation."
And in subjective areas such as what constitutes "hate" it's all in the eye of the beholder, coming from either the left or the right.
Twitter, FB, etc: Uh, we don’t want to be “people” anymore if this could be bad for us and only remain so if it is always a positive and never a negative.
Not sure if that helps. For people the constitution is clear that no person can be forced to say something they don’t want to.
Person doctrine one reason get rid of Citizens United.
Then they can’t force someone to be silent.
If an actor was hired to appear in a Biden commercial, would that actor be legally obligated to appear in a Trump commercial if offered the same pay?
No court in the country would force the actor to do both ads. Nor should they.
No one can be silenced, no one can be forced to speak: maximum freedom of speech.
So the solution is if you want protection from lawsuits you operate as a platform, if you want to censor then you operate as a publisher, and them as a platform you can’t censor unless it’s a clear and present danger that people are posting on said platform.
That's not what's going on.
The social media companies aren't stopping anyone from speaking, but they are saying they have the right to choose what they want on the platforms they developed.
Just like every other forum on the internet does.
There are lots of other places you can say what you want.
They get too many benefits from 230 to claim they are just another company. I for one would gladly give them the right to censor anyone in exchange for them having no access to any subsidies or any protection from lawsuits etc. The problem I have is they get to have it both ways (probably because they own all 3 branches of government)
So which of those should FR operate under if it wants to keep as a conservative forum and ban leftists, but also needs protection from lawsuits?
Despite your anti-Trump, pro-Twitter/FB censoring position on this, Twitter and others cannot say they are a platform and act like a publisher.
Second, since they are people, people cannot put their hand on your mouth and censor you, especially so when they are all essentially also a public utility now. What next, gang ups to shut off someone’s water?
Third, they wanted to be people, but they may not want to be treated as such, and the possibilities of that can be ferreted out.
The issue that both the impending Trump/Coale class action suit and Dr. Shiva pro se cases advancing in the courts now address is the Big Tech firms actually acting for the government (on both the state and national levels) to effect the censorship that is of course unconstitutional for the government to impose directly.
That cat’s paw approach to implementing the unconstitutional has itself already been declared unconstitutional.
There would be rules for when one is at utility-level, or monopolistic level power or close to it which FR isn’t at and Twitter, FB, etc, are, so FR needn’t worry.
Beat me to it.
Should also apply to the freedom not to bake a cake for homos.
They get the exact same protection every internet forum gets, including FR.
The term of art in Section 230 is 'interactive computer service' and the protections apply to all of them.
There would be where? In your perfect world?
We're not there yet so we still have to deal with the Constitution.
I think it should but we've made laws forbiding discrimination on the basis of sex, which is more and more being taken to include sexual orientation.
We don't have any civil rights laws protecting political ideology.
“Can people put their hand on another person’s mouth and censor them? “
If I recall correctly, some on this forum believe that when a speaker is on privately owned property, the owner can restrict the speaker’s right to free speech.
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.