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 ...
If people just wanted a conservative web site where they could preach to the choir, then it already exists: FreeRepublic.
What people like Steven Crowder, Stefan Molyneux, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, etc. want is a place where they can broadcast their message to people of all political persuasions in hopes of broadening the support for conservative ideas.
That won't happen if they all move to FreeRepublic or places like Vimeo with fewer and more homogeneous viewers.
Corporations only exist as fictitious people because they are granted this privilege by the government. That privilege can be taken away. YouTube hosts videos providing tips to sex tourists visiting Thailand. If so, then what set of Terms of Service will allow that but prevent people from advocating for conservative opinions?
My own take is that Supreme Court justices are chosen by politicians beholden to large corporations. They will decide this case in favor of large corporations. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and the companies that advertise on these platforms would all like politics, especially conservative politics, removed from the internet. So eventually most conservative thought will either be eliminated from the internet or compartmentalized safely in places like FreeRepublic. This will happen regardless of whatever legal, economic or philosophical arguments anyone can muster.
NOTE: Very few of my conservative friends have even heard of FreeRepublic. And these are very, very conservative friends who watch the news and surf the internet for the latest information. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are a ghetto.
Mis-representation in SEC filingsmakes it a mis-branding in marketing-under-color-of-public-accommodation issue for which their 1st Amendment rights are not a protection.
It's more likely a 14th Amendment issue.
Likely a Civil Rights Act public accommodation issue as well.
Facebook Shuts Down Christian Ideas While Letting Others Post Threats
FReegards!
There is legal precedent for private companies / property who take certain actions to be considered a “public forum”. In this day an age, Google, Facebook, Twitter and YoUTube have all taken the actions for which they should be considered a modern day “town square”.
It is not the same. For one thing, FR does not have government recruiting pages. It does not have a marketplace. It does not host garage sales, pet adoption, etc. There are court cases (malls) for example where it was ruled that because the mall allowed a wide variety of activity and allowed military recruiters to set up shop, that the public areas (not individual stores) could not limit free speech activities. There are specific things that a private company / property owner must do and FB, Twitter, YouTube and Google have taken actions that meet the requirements of a public forum. They are the latter day town square, by their own actions.
“Websites that are not owned by the government are not controlled by the government.”
And restaurants that are not owned by government are not controlled by government. That’s why public accommodation laws passed by congress are ignored by restaurants. Isn’t that right, troll?
I agree that they will rule with the large corps. But there sure is legal precedent for making them respect constitutional rights for everyone.
Bock v Westminster Mall: because the mall owner allowed a wide range of activities such as Christmas events, pageants, military recruiters, commmunity events, etc inside the common area of a mall, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the mall was a “latter day public forum” and could not eject protesters, and had to respect their 1st amendment rights.
Marsh v Alabama: the US Supreme Court ruled that a private company town had to permit free speech activities because it acted like a de facto real town.
The common element seems to be:
Allow public to have access, allow a wide range of activities other than the original narrow scope and allow government offices to set up.
The reason I believe FB, YT, Twitter and Google meets this requirement is because anyone can see a Channel, page or feed unless it is marked private, they all allow cities and recruiters to “set up shop” and they allow a very wide variety of activities. For example on FB you can post pet adoptions, shop (marketplace), have a business or personal page, go sign up to vote or contact your favorite politician.
If FB was just for talking to your relatives then it would never meet the requirements, but for the benefit of the stockholders, they promote a large variety of activity. Read the Bock v Westminster Mall rulings and it seems like it fits exactly what FB, Twitter and YouTube do.
“They are the latter day town square, by their own actions.”
I agree. The challenge will be limits on protection. People want to stop bullying. However people on the left are so easily bullied. You are a bully if you disagree with them or make fun of them. They never consider themselves bullying with global warming or gender indoctrination or when they make fun of others. It seems like the onus should be those being bullied to leave.
The Civil Rights Acts only protect race, color, religion and national origin.
“The Civil Rights Acts only protect race, color, religion and national origin.”
And Facebook has shut down dozens of religious sites. It has also shut down sites promoting white people.
Try again.
Exactly. The definition of bullying / harassment / hate speech is vague. Now they are banning NPC memes because it is “dehumanizing” to point out that someone is just going along with the crowd. So there are no rules or guidelines because they can consider anything bullying, harassment, hate speech, or the favorite new lefty word “dehumanizing”.
Seriously....A cartoon showing a group of anonymous people just following along with the crowd is “dehumanizing”, evil and must be banned. Unreal. The censoring is far faster and more aggressive than I would have thought 5 years ago.
It is either a Free Speech issue or an Anti Trust issue with regards to consequences, I lean heavily to Anti Trust because they have Violated it in Spades.
The problem right now is Facebook and Twitter each have like 99% of their respective markets so they are de facto monopolies. Facebook and Twitter are business platforms as well and used to drive sales traffic for web businesses. So this is a real conundrum being if you can’t operate on these two platfroms because the owners decide they don’t like your politics it causes a real constitutional problem. Imagine if you will TV networks deciding they will no longer allow republican campaign adds because the Republicans support Kavahaugh and Trump. This is what is happening on Facebook and Twitter.
I hope for all our sakes that you are right.
This case isn’t about big corporation. This case is about public access TV which comes with certain necessities to serve the broader public interest as part of a cable company’s agreement to be a sole provider.
On the FB et al front we damn well better HOPE that if it becomes a case to the Supreme they decide in favor of the corporations. Because that’s deciding in the favor of private property. If FB can’t kick messages off their property they don’t like, then neither can you. I’d be able to put a political sign in your yard you don’t agree with and you wouldn’t be able to take it down. Free speech ends at the property line, and this is a good thing.
You nailed it.
I can’t believe that so many on Free Republic are so simple minded that they think that Facebook deceiving investors and participants, whose identities the company traffics for revenue and market share, should be able to rob members of their status, reputation, and earning potential on the whims of company (or third-party) censors.
Regulating these big, multi-national companies is not at all a “slippery slope” by which websites such as this one will become regulated.
Free Republic is not publicly traded. It is and always has been up front about its policies and stated mission. And it does not include members being able to become famous or earn an income from their postings here.
There are many thousands of people who have built large income streams on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and others and are now being “deplatformed” and robbed of their rightful reputations and earnings after they helped build the rising popularity of these platforms.
The Lefties would want to keep defeated Deplorables on the sites to mock them daily for fun.
Yes! Especially in the case of Apple, Google, there are definite anti trust issues. When one company controls so many facets of commerce and communication, they have become like the government.
So for example “Alex Jones”... they shut down his FB, YouTube, Twitter. Have they shut down his PayPal? I think so. What about if banks, taking their lead from the big 3, also decline to do business with him. It’s only a matter of time before the web hosting company declines to do business with him as well, next Microsoft says he has violated their terms of service, so no Microsoft applications, etc. Perhaps gmail will brand any incoming email from his organization as spam or hate speech and blocks it. Chrome blocks his site or decides it’s not secure. He is unable to do business.
Instead of Alex jones, insert Free Republic, the NRA, a Pepper Spray manufacturer, Marijuana dispensary, Pro Life activists or any other business or person that is deemed “controversial”.
These are sticky issues, when a company is so large and has such a monopoly, that it can reach across into almost every aspect of a business or person’s life.... I sure don’t know what the answers are. I hope the Supreme Court thinks through all these issues.
WOW! This will be a hugely important case. Hopefully, this is where the appointments of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh make the difference for freedom of speech and against censorship.
I don’t agree with that. A single message board is not remotely comparable to a mega corporation that is effectively a monopoly over say videos (youtube) or search (Google) or tweets (twitter) or social media (facebook), etc. Sure other companies exist in those realms but they are minnows next to those whales.
If Free Republic utterly dominated all message boards on the internet and if the barriers to entry to start your own message board which could compete with FR’s domination of all internet message boards were high, then the comparison would be valid. It is not though - not even close.
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.