Posted on 07/07/2021 2:55:00 PM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
Which should FR do?
Same rules should apply. If I don’t want to read someone’s post it’s pretty easy for me to block them. All that being said, which branch of government does FR own? Apples and Oranges as far as I’m concerned.
The coordinated effort to silence Trump’s message, his voice, the voices of his supporters, and stories damaging to Trump’s opponent, those efforts have a value as political assistance to the opponent. Trump should highlight the dollar value of the donation by specifically silencing political speech.
But not as far as Section 230 is concerned.
You being able to block them isn't the point. You not being able to sue Jim for something I posted is.
I watched Dr Shiva describe his class action law suit
He has has the receipts
That is.... he has an authentic copy of the binding agreement between Twitter and the US Government to work together
That make Twitter an arm of government.
The first amendment is about government, not corporations.
Trumps lawsuit won’t make it past go.
Twitter is not a utility. People die without electricity. Not so much Twitter.
I fear we are spending all of our time and energy fighting the last war. And because of that, we will lose again.
Forming a corporation can seriously curtail being sued for damages, provides a wall between persons and the corporation, protects shareholders, etc.
And given how much power Twitter, FB. YT, etc, have, we can see that corporate power is out of control.
It’s one thing on paper, but in action where were any penalty flags and pulled threads, etc, against Biden compared to the unending onslaught of them against Trump?
The ease of corporate formation was both a distinguishing feature of American capitalism and a major spur for America's rapid economic development. Indeed, easier corporate formation became a major aspect of Europe's efforts to compete with the US. Go back far enough and one finds political jeremiads in Europe by socialists and tradition-minded elitists in Europe against easy "American style" corporate formation. Neither socialists nor elitists wanted such power put in the hands of ordinary people and ambitious businessmen eager to found new enterprises.
Thinking that "corporate power" is the defining problem with Google, Facebook, etc. is like thinking that America's housing stock could be improved by limiting the height of skyscrapers. No, the best remedy against corporate misconduct is to identify and challenge the specific misconduct, filing suit in court, energizing the proper administrative agencies, and passing new legislation. Engineers call it "working the problem."
Oddly, many American conservatives are now so reflexively hostile toward regulation in concept that they are unable to "work the problem" of out of control tech giants. Yet if one goes back and reads Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, and other great modern advocates of economic freedom, they all acknowledged that regulation was essential to orderly markets, the security of property and business, and to freedom itself.
Trump is on the mark in suing the tech giants. Instead of complaining broadly about "corporate power," he is going into battle against them.
And if Jim isn’t being the editor by blocking every post he doesn’t like you wouldn’t be able to sue him. Sam we with Twitter, that’s exactly my point. If they don’t want to be sued then they shouldn’t have editorial control. I.e, block POTUS for saying something “controversial”. I think you get my point even if you choose to disagree. You may stop pretending like you don’t.
You’re right, I think I missed your point.
You’re the first person I’ve seen say this about FR but it really is the consistent position.
It would drastically change the nature of the internet if no one could moderate their forums and I’m not sure anyone would like the result, but it would keep Trump on Twitter.
I understand your concern and I would be fine with just targeting the giants who own the government. At this point this is a war and it doesn’t seem necessary to play by it set of rules that only target the good guys. That being said, there are other technical solutions (I.e, can’t see comments without having an account then you could have any rules you wanted). By allowing everyone to see comments (the ones that pass your editorial board)then you give up the right to pretend that you are not a public forum of communication or a publisher. Different rules
“The first amendment is about government, not corporations.”
As the Second Amendment recognizes but does not create the right to bear arms, the First Amendment recognizes but does not create freedom of speech, which most consider to mean the right to free speech, and “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”.
“Trumps lawsuit won’t make it past go.”
Likely so.
“Depends on the venue. Usually nothing except your testimony will be discarded.”
True enough.
“You can’t be forced to testify against yourself but probably could be held in contempt of court in some cases.”
If to avoid a contempt citation, fine and possibly a jail sentence, a person says something they didn’t want to say, they have been “forced to say something they don’t want to”.
Interesting.
All the Paragraph spacing disappeared when I Posted my Comment.
I think they are out to get me. #’^)
Sure, no right is absolute and courts can issue subpoenas, gag orders, etc. You still can't be compelled to testify about yourself unless given immunity.
But these are narrow exceptions within the judicial system and based on laws that have been passed and upheld by SCOTUS as being necessary for the public good.
If Congress passes a law and SCOTUS upholds it the courts will be able to make Twitter keep Trump's posts up. Until then Twitter's 1st Amendment rights hold.
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.