Posted on 02/27/2020 8:28:43 PM PST by jonatron
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that internet giants like Google and Facebook can censor content on their platforms, rebuking arguments from conservatives who claim the tech companies violate users' First Amendment rights by removing certain messages or videos.
With its unanimous opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest court to dismiss arguments that platforms like YouTube can be sued under the First Amendment for decisions on content moderation.
"Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, wrote in the opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
It means the moderators of those places can just delete stuff without giving a reason.
And that is different, how? It’s their place.
1 Clinton, 1 Bush Sr, 1 Bush Jr judge:
Ok. So they can be sued for libel and slander now for ANY content on their platform.
Bingo.
The cake maker was a public entity.
YES, that’s sarcasm.
We need four more years of new judges.
They take government money. How are they different from universities?
I hope they can get SCOTUS to take it up.
I hope they can get SCOTUS to take it up.
Under section 230 today it is, but the day is coming when that will be challenged. Or at least the immunity from libel laws will be. If a provider engages in censorship of content it should not enjoy the same legal protection as that extended to a neutral platform.
That was forcing a private business to sell its services to someone, under threat of financial ruin and prison.
Are they subsidized by government? If the money they get is in exchange for services rendered, they're not like public universities.
Yup - if you remove legal content, you're liable for unremoved illegal content.
Or congress needs to pass legislation defining when a forum ceases to be a private forum and becomes a public forum.
Maybe private forums should be required to display that they reserve the right to censor viewpoints.
This case is about the social media platforms wanting to "have their cake and eat it too". The plaintiff asked only that, like every other media in the US, social media declare itself to either be a public forum or an editor.
Like all other media, if they are an editor they become liable for any damages arising from the use of their service. If they are a public forum then they can still exercise some very limited control, but they are not liable for damages arising from use of their service.
This court case was about the rule-of-law vs. arbitrary justice, and the latter prevailed. It was a sad day for America.
Then nothing is a public forum.
Gov can’t stop tech monopolies from silencing conservatives because business freedom is important.
Gov can stop cake shops from serving who they want because business freedom isn’t that important. Am I missing something here?
I could buy this argument IF the courts also rule that private companies that state clearly at their entrances that. “we reserve the right not to serve...”.
Yet, this is not the case. There have been court rulings against that stated policy, based upon loose interpretations of the Constitution and laws passed in recent decades.
Either a private entity has the right to set its own rules and standards or it does not.
Selective application undermines the rule of law when it comes to private property rights when selectively applied.
So could AT&T cut off phone lines to the JFK Campaign in 1960, because they didn’t like his policies?
I don’t think so. And the thing was, I’m sure they never even considered doing it...that’s the difference now.
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.