That's what I said.
It's way past Civil Rights Act violation time right about now.
Facebook Shuts Down Christian Ideas While Letting Others Post Threats
FReegards!
Posted on 10/17/2018 1:05:33 PM PDT by rightwingcrazy
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country’s largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.
That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet’s Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.
The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation earlier this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
“I’m not sure how this can be a free speech issue being that these are private companies.”
No they aren’t. They trade on the exchange so that makes them public companies. Best thing t ht could happen is both companies are removed from the exchange. Then if they want to operate as a private company, have at it.
“It will be interesting to see Kavanaugh’s and Gorsuch’s take on this. “
They are both big proponents of narrow decisions.
I think there are Anti-Trust elements which make them vulnerable, even SEC.
” These service are the primary way that humans communicate now.”
Nonsense.
Besides, even on the internet there are thousands of ways to communicate. We are communicating on an internet platform now. Some would call it social media.
The idea of Facebook being “THE public square” is equal nonsense.
Facebook is not even a monopoly subject to anti-trust law.
However, Amazon and Google are both Trusts in violation of anti-trust law.
And they will be broken up.
This leads to questions about SEC violations even civil suits for fraud.
Bandwidth in the communications spectrum is not private - it is public.
Brilliant. A Marketplace model.
Brilliant. A Marketplace model.
The Constitution doesn’t say that private companies are exempt from abiding with the law of the land. All of our rights are Good given, and nobody has the right to try and take them from you. The fact is, we all have additional rights that the bill of rights even enumerates.
Just because I walk I to somebody’s building doesn’t mean I leave my constitutional protections at the door.
Private entities are required by federal law to make parking spaces,widedoors,and restrooms available for the handicapped. Private businesses are required by federal law not to discriminate ate against XYZ ..
Colleges which are often State owned can’t tell you what you can say, not say, believe, write or express in artistic form because you are an adult and have the right to decide these things for yourself.
The businesses portraying themselves as open to the public and may not censure adults.
The cakebaker was an artist and business owner and hecamtbe forced to relinquish his rights, but a public discussion forum owner doesn’t loose his rights when others share a different opinion. The board owner can easily put a disclaimer stating that the expressed opinions belong to the author of said opinions, and may not necessarily the opinion of the business.
If these aboard owners want a closed board, then that’s what they should be. The function as public forums and should accommodate the public. Notkust parts of it.
And I totally disagree that porn constitutes first amendment rights.
It is not the government’s role to control private companies and their philosophical stands.
If conservatives want a free speech venue, create a competitor to facebook, you tube, Google, Twitter.
If they can go after Standard Oil and AT&T they can go after these companies under the Anti-Trust Laws.
How many stores have been squeezed out by Amazon?
Freedom of speech is guaranteed against govt intrusion. It has nothing to do with private organizations. They are not bound by the first amendment at all.
Probably not. Public access TV is vastly different from private websites. The court would have to make a pretty poorly worded decision for this ruling to have anything to do with FB and Twitter.
There’s hundreds of social media sites. A few companies own the BIG ones that you know about. But there’s tons of social media services that haven’t hit critical mass yet. Ban enough people the competition will grow. it’s nothing like Ma Bell.
“The petitioners also faulted arguments made by MNN that the Second Circuit’s ruling could be extended to put Facebook, Twitter, and public radio stations under same type of First Amendment considerations. “If this case ever does prompt a subsequent court of appeals to reach the sort of fanciful results that petitioners and their amici fear—such as deeming Twitter, NPR, or an Internet service provider a state actor—the Court can grant review then. These fairy-tale monsters are no reason for review here,” Hughes said.”
“Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram are all popular social media venues used for sharing political opinion. And, though they are all privately owned and operated, they are subject to numerous federal and state laws, exist because the government created the Internet, and are utilized by all levels of government. But applying the traditional state actor analysis should still lead to the conclusion that these entities and their employees are not state actors. See, e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC....(dismissing First Amendment claims against YouTube and Google); Shulman v. Facebook.com...(Facebook not constitutional state actor). Under the new test announced by the Majority, it is not so clear that these entities are divorced from state action.”
In another thread we were assured that now that we had a conservative majority on the Supreme Court things would change.
But if the only thing that happens is that individuals who go before the court get relief from liberal nonsense, then not much will be changed at all.
That's what I said.
It's way past Civil Rights Act violation time right about now.
Facebook Shuts Down Christian Ideas While Letting Others Post Threats
FReegards!
It all depends on the case before the court.
Certainly Scalia would not interpret a decision on access to Community Television as a tool to rein in Social Media.
The current composition of the USSC is such that they will need to have a case directly related, not obliquely.
They’re looking for excuses to ban content and non-PC people from social media.
Big Tech Censorship of the Right Becoming a Regular Thing
https://stream.org/big-tech-censorship/
Agree on the election tampering.
The Terms of Service argument isn’t valid. They’re redefining terms so that offensive and unacceptable refers to polite repeating of conservative views. While liberals literally calling for violence or hash tags like kill all whites, kill all men, etc are somehow just find with liberal “trust and safety” councils.
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.