Posted on 05/06/2021 8:00:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The Oversight Board circumvents First Amendment concerns because it is appointed by the industry, in this case Facebook, and the firm voluntarily follows its rulings. Board members should always favor free expression but, at the same time, are not bound to what have become often dogmatic formulas regarding First Amendment precedent. Thus, in the board’s first major ruling Wednesday, it chastised the firm’s process and very likely left an opening for Trump to return to the space.
Now that we’ve established the board has power, it must be expanded to cover the entire social media ecosystem. As it stands, its jurisdiction includes only Facebook. If other social media firms agreed to follow the board’s content decisions, it would create a powerful form of industry self-regulation and preempt the need for laws, ill-advised or not, that seek to regulate the firms.
The board, which started its work in 2020 and made its first decisions in January, has already done much of the work needed to help regulate the entire industry. It has established a charter and created an appeals process. The board includes a diverse collection of scholars, policy-makers and nonprofit leaders.
The Trump ruling, while the board did not overturn Facebook’s decision, reinforces the review board model as a functional tool for creating a legitimate, non-governmental way to regulate social media.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Now that we’ve established the board has power, it must be expanded to cover the entire social media ecosystem. As it stands, its jurisdiction includes only Facebook. If other social media firms agreed to follow the board’s content decisions, it would create a powerful form of industry self-regulation and preempt the need for laws, ill-advised or not, that seek to regulate the firms.
—
The Hill advocates for censorship via an NGO answerable to no one.
“dogmatic formulas regarding First Amendment precedent”
It’s called Fascism.
A government/private partnership. If government wants censorship or domestic spying that would be problematic for them, they call their tech buddies. If tech needs special laws protecting them from litigation, diplomatic muscle to protect the from foreign laws, more H1Bs,... government provides.
And we the voter, the American people is nowhere in the mix.
The “Board” is doubtless answerable to somebody, but it certainly not the American people.
Don’t they have the right to deny us ours? No? Well, then... perhaps some folks need a little schooling right about now. We might just get all riled up, and send them a tersely worded letter, after a pause or two for reflection. Action is what we need, son, action!
So they pointed out that Fakebook violated their own rules with an indefinite ban, and the answer is? Wait, answer is cloudy ask again later < /Magic DoucheBall >
Tell them to bake the fracking cake.
>> It’s called Fascism.
Definitively!
The truth is they pretended to express mild displease by the way Facebook treated President Trump to to appear to be fair and evenhanded, but, to no ones' surprise, upheld the decision by Facebook.
It reminds me of Pontius Pilate washing his hands.
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.