Posted on 05/27/2020 8:10:55 AM PDT by kevcol
President Trump on Wednesday threatened to “strongly regulate” or close down social media platforms if they silence conservative voices, stepping up his criticism after Twitter attached fact-checking context to Mr. Trump’s tweets for the first time on Tuesday.
“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen,” the president said on Twitter.
“We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that…happen again,” the president said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I've articulated "my standard" many times. I guess you've missed it. I'll reiterate.
Standard number 1: Effective market dominance.
Sites that have significant effect on the populace, such as sites having a million or more users, are effectively "public places" or "commons" as the old English law calls it. They cannot be allowed to be censored because they have too much influence on the populace.
Standard number 2: Clubs are not "public."
There is a principle difference between organizations intended to serve a small community and those claiming to serve everyone. Private clubs such as "Free Republic" can and should do as they like. On the other hand, Public Forums should be required to operate under the normal rules of American Freedom of Speech.
In the case of Google, Youtube (same thing), Facebook and Twitter, they built their business model on the assertion that they were open to all members of the public, and it is for this reason that they were able to grow so large. What they are doing now is a "bait and switch".
Had they made clear their intentions that Conservative opinion and speech would be censored, we could have refrained from supporting them, and indeed opposed them from the very beginning. Their business model was built on a lie, and there should be a price to pay for that.
They have effectively "injured" us in the legal sense. There should be legal consequences to them for having done so.
What makes Freepers so dense on this issue? He is not working outside the law he is merely saying they can't censor and remain immune to prosecution, which the current laws says he can do.
Dense? You cannot apply censorship correctly. Go read the constitution. Get grasp on the first amendment and then come back with something meaningful.
The First amendment proscribes government censorship. If you can’t cope with it go over to the DU were you will find the same illiteracy of the US Constitution as you are demonstrating.
You have no right to be heard. You have no right to impose your speech on any private person or entity not wishing to hear it.
Go read the Constitution. Cite the parts that say the government can enforce speech standards on private persons. Try it.
Your TDS has increased over the years, and eventually you will have a CVA due to your bs hatred of our president.
Go to DU where they will appreciate a Trump hating A$$ like you.
Enjoy your TDS CVA!
Let us say for the sake of argument that you are correct about this.
Why did the founders oppose government censorship?
They at least need a business license. I think Trump should pull their business licenses.
Once you have read and understand The First Amendment we can discuss it without any suppositions.
*I* do understand it's purpose. You clearly do not understand it's purpose, else you could explain it in simple terms.
I do not need to explain anything because your nutty idea would clearly violate the First Amendment. You have not made any argument so far that explains how government censorship comports with the First Amendment.
I know what the constitution says, you and John Roberts are the ones having trouble understanding it. All Trump is doing is asserting that these social media companies by censoring comments have become publishers and subject to liability laws. Changes nothing in the Constitution just clearly defines difference. The also should come under scrutiny by the FEC because clearly they are supporting political ambitions of the left.
And here you are deliberately flipping the truth into a lie. You are claiming that I am advocating "government censorship". That is a f***ing lie. You know it's a lie, but you are deliberately repeating it anyways.
Do you feel that you need to lie to put forth my position because if you described it accurately, you couldn't sell your opposition to it?
I am advocating that government *PROHIBIT CENSORSHIP.* Not engage in it.
We have common carrier companies censoring public communications, and this is a violation of the first amendment.
And you do not act like someone who even understands the purpose of the first amendment. You are one of those that can't see the forest because you're focused on a tree.
When the government controls speech of private persons or entities engages in censorship especially when it compels speech. Private companies cannot engage in unconstitutional censorship. Go read the First again or maybe for the first time. See who it restricts. Private companies and individuals have the right to restrict speech. It’s very simple.
This forum is a great example. Mr. Robinson May toss any of us for any reason whatsoever at anytime. The government may not compel him to give a platform to those he finds objectionable. His restrictions though a form of censorship are not Constitutionally forbidden. If the government told Mr. Robinson that he had to carry all posts then it would be engaging in unconstitutional censorship.
The social media platforms have everyright to exclude any thing they wish.
Why do we have it? What need did the founders see?
What is the danger of not having it?
You have yet to read it and tell me what it says. Why don’t you read it and tell me where it explains that the government can regulate the speech of private entities.
I am trying to tell you what it says, but you are still refusing to cooperate. You are too focused on words and not sufficiently focused on purpose.
Why don’t you read it and tell me where it explains that the government can regulate the speech of private entities.
Here is more of that deliberately misstating my position. The government *FORCING* "private" companies that control massive amounts of American communications traffic to carry all the traffic, is not "regulating" the speech of private entities.
These f***ing companies are perfectly within their rights to *SAY* anything they so choose to say, but what they cannot be allowed to do, is to control American speech to other Americans.
Still not seeing the part were the First Amendment allows the government to enforce regulation of speech on private companies. It says the exact opposite. The first prevents the government from regulating speech.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Were is the part about the government shall compel social media companies to give space for your speech? Oh, thats right there is some hidden meaning that you know about that turns “Congress shall make no law...” into “Congress shall make a law if someone cries about big mean old media companies...”.
Forcing someone to speak something they do not wish to speak is abridging speech. Freedom of speech also means the freedom to not speak or from being forced to speak someone else’s speech. It is ludicrous to say to the government can force a private entity or person to say things they do not agree with.
You have no right to force anyone to carry your speech and even better you have no right to be heard and the government is barred by the first from compelling anyone to do so.
You seem like an individual who is unaware of the larger picture. Who has no grasp of the deeper meaning of anything.
Also the phone company is a "private" company too.
With regards to government control of speech there is no bigger picture than the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The phone company is a government regulated monopoly. There are no government enforced monopolies in social media.
I would advise you to read up on Locke. You need to start somewhere.
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.