Posted on 04/27/2022 11:58:42 AM PDT by Red Badger
The UK on Tuesday threatened to ban Twitter altogether and potentially jail Elon Musk if he violates their incoming "Online Safety Bill" by allowing free speech on his platform.
The move came just hours after the EU threatened to ban Twitter entirely if Musk allows free speech on the platform and the US threatened to "reform" Section 230 to hold social media companies "accountable" for the "harms they cause."
From CNBC: Britain's Online Safety Bill would make it mandatory for social media services to tackle both illegal posts as well as material that is "legal but harmful," a vague definition that has attracted criticism from some in the tech industry over concerns that it may stifle free speech.
"Twitter and all social media platforms must protect their users from harm on their sites," a U.K. government spokesperson told CNBC.
"We are introducing new online safety laws to safeguard children, prevent abusive behaviour and protect free speech," the spokesperson said. "All tech firms with users in the U.K. will need to comply with the new laws or face hefty fines and having their sites blocked."
The stakes for platforms like Twitter would be even higher under the Online Safety Bill, which threatens jail time for company executives for serious violations, as well as penalties of up to 10% of annual global sales.
The legislation, which is yet to be approved by U.K. lawmakers, is expected to become law later this year. Musk said earlier in the day after the EU's threats were issued that, "The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all."
"By 'free speech', I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people," Musk said.
It's truly remarkable how these Western regimes will condemn China and Russia for cracking down on dissent while they actively wage total war against free speech and free expression in their own countries against their own subjects.
I don't care what is the opinions of courts. They lost credibility a long time ago. I am only concerned with real world truth, not made up nonsense from the Judiciary.
You and I may disagree with the courts’ decisions, but that does not change the legal status of Twitter or YouTube or, to bring things closer to home, Free Republic.
Free Republic is a club. Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, and so forth are mass communications systems used by the public.
I disagree. The intent of the First Amendment is that speech be not censored. The danger and threat it poses is just as serious if done by "private" corporations as it is if done by government.
The First Amendment applies to any entity capable of censoring public speech.
The case law on this is remarkably consistent and goes back to the early 19th Century.
Back on the courts again I see. I am reminded of what President Jackson said.
"The court has made it's opinion, now let it enforce it."
And then he ignored the court completely.
“Free Republic is a club”
FR is a privately owned forum, as are Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, etc. Your assertion that they are something different doesn’t make it so. Again, the First Amendment protects individuals from *government* censorship, not private censorship.
Comparing a lightning bug to lightning.
Free Republic is a small dedicated club. It does not have millions of users and It doesn't have hundreds of thousands of users.
Twitter, Youtube, Instagram all have millions of users and are defacto public communications systems. They are digital commons used by the public and they must be made to respect the rights of the public.
Your assertion that they are something different doesn’t make it so.
No it doesn't, but the fact that it *IS* so, makes it so.
Again, the First Amendment protects individuals from *government* censorship, not private censorship.
It protects against censorship of the public. Efforts to restrict it to government are wrongheaded and ignore the intent of the framers in creating it.
“It protects against censorship of the public. Efforts to restrict it to government are wrongheaded and ignore the intent of the framers in creating it.”
The First Amendment “protects against censorship of the public” *by the government* (Congress, originally and, via the Fourteenth Amendment, the individual states). Interestingly, James Madison thought that violations of the “natural rights” of the people were more likely to be committed by the states, not the federal government. He was unsuccessful, though, in getting his more expansive language circumventing abridgements of free speech by state legislatures as well as Congress adopted by those who revised his initial drafts. In no case did Madison envision Constitutional restrictions on *private* “censorship.”
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.