Posted on 08/28/2018 2:06:58 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/protect-free-speech-digital-public-square-0
WE THE PEOPLE ASK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CALL ON CONGRESS TO ACT ON AN ISSUE: Protect Free Speech in the Digital Public Square
Created by W.C. on August 28, 2018
4,984 SIGNED 100,000 GOAL
The internet is the modern public square. It is where political campaigns are fought and won, where journalism is created and distributed, and where grassroots movements are born. Yet, the free and open internet has become a controlled, censored space, monopolized by a few unaccountable corporations.
By banning users from their platforms, those corporations can effectively remove politically unwelcome Americans from the public square. That is repugnant to our shared values of free speech and freedom of the press.
The President should request that Congress pass legislation prohibiting social media platforms from banning users for First Amendment-protected speech. The power to block lawful content should be in the hands of individual users – not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.
CIVIL RIGHTS & EQUALITYTECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION Facebook Email Twitter
THE WHITE HOUSE MAY SEND ME EMAILS ABOUT THIS AND OTHER ISSUES. BY SIGNING THIS PETITION YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF PARTICIPATION AND PRIVACY POLICY. How Petitions Work Create a Petition Call on the White House to take action on the issue that matters to you.
Gather Signatures Share your petition with others, build a community for the change you want to make.
100,000 Signatures in 30 Days Get an official update from the White House within 60 days.
But it would be better to simply support a competitor as Plan A. Antitrust would be Plan B, if they are destroying competition. Not otherwise.
23,960 SIGNED
“This petition would destroy Free Republic”
Quite.
Facebook, Twitter, etc are NOT unstoppable juggernauts. I’ve seen enough come & go over the years (since I could follow every posting on Usenet daily). Don’t overestimate their user base. Don’t overestimate their influence.
And don’t overestimate unintended consequences. Remember, FR banned InfoWars etc for YEARS - do we really want to impose “public speech on private presses” rules? no. Don’t. Go. There. You’ll regret it.
“What, you’re one of those ‘get your own press’ types?” Yes indeed. Get on Gab.ai, folks. Register your own website. Use any of the many services out there. Get off Facebook (I have, cold turkey). Get off Twitter (I’ll dump that soon). Liberate yourself from the BS managing those sites. They win because the Right feels beholden to using them. Get off en mass, deny them users, take your speech where it’s wanted.
The ONLY suggestion in support of this petition: push “common carrier” rules, to wit - if a site is going to moderate content, then absolutely hold their feet to the fire for anything that’s illegal, make them responsible for content if they’re going to cull content. Give them a reason to appeal to “common carrier”, where they’re not responsible for what’s posted, and as such leave content the heck alone.
Freedom of the press means you don’t get to use someone else’s - even if they’re really influential with theirs.
From what I have learned about how the entire system protects itself from competition, I do not believe any realistic competitor to Google is possible.
What is YouTube market share?
We aren't talking about "Presses" we are talking about humongous, billion user mass communications systems that manipulate elections.
I've been saying we need to stomp a mudhole in the existing broadcast media, let alone these mega corp leviathans.
Yes, if your system of communications has the ability to reach hundreds of millions of people, the entire purpose of enshrining free speech as a right, requires this mass communications system to be available to all political points of view.
Were it up to me, i'd be prosecuting the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) for biased hiring practices because half their employees aren't conservative.
I would be sledgehammering these people with any legal tool I could fine, and I would not stop beating them until people like Mark Steyn are evening news anchors.
We should have Rush Limbaugh on NBC, Mark Steyn on CNN, Thomas Sowell on CBS, and Sarah Palin on ABC.
They are manipulating the American public with their broadcasting power, and until we force them to stop it, we will never solve the problems we have in this nation.
26,457 signed so far.
I saw this:
“this has nothing to do with the internet other than they’re providing services on the internet.
“This is all with US banks and US credit card processors.”
And we should just ignore this because there is absolutely no connection between the one thing and the other.
No. But if that’s the case, all that remains is anti-Trust prosecution. Plan B is a go.
In that case, as I’ve said in a separate thread, anti-Trust is the way to go.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3682982/posts?page=71#71
“This is all with US banks and US credit card processors.”
And we should just ignore this because there is absolutely no connection between the one thing and the other.
Two stupid red herrings in one post. To refrain from coercive legislation is not to "ignore"; and a "connection" is insufficient basis for regulating the arena in which the wrong took place rather than the wrongdoer.
48,759 signed . Almost halfway there.
Excellent, Sir!
Your vigilance is true to your name.
Perfectly said:
RE: “Apples and oranges. Twitter banning users engaged in perfectly legal speech would be more akin to those old switchboard operators disconnecting phone calls because they didn’t approve of the conversations. “
Lets end this ridiculous slippery slope handringing right now.
1. Facebook, Google, Twitter are ALL International multi-Billion dollar Commumications platforms that governments use for emergency management and community services messages to the public - not much different TELEVISION stations.
2. A number of business sectors (Marketing for instance) actually require employees have a Facebook or Twitter account as a condition of employment to ensure identity authentication, and reputation - not much different than an employer expecting a candidate to have a PHONE number.
Free Republic, a small US based private political forum, does not enjoy such international utility.
Case closed.
zaklee
Went there; did that!
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.