Justice Clarence Thomas Says Social Media Companies Do Not Have the Right to Ban Protected Speech

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: olaru12

Leave privately held corporations alone and let the marketplace decide their fate. It's called Capitalism. Do you really want a social socialist media?

We already have a social socialist media.

That's the problem.

If that's the case...who do you propose to regulate it?

The FCC, of course.

Look, these huge leftist conglomerates are shielded right now and can do whatever they want, play any political role they want, silence whomever they want.

You want capitalism?

Fine.

Let's level the playing field and let ACTUAL capitalism come into play.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: olaru12

Leave privately held corporations alone and let the marketplace decide their fate. It's called Capitalism. Do you really want a social socialist media?

We already have a social socialist media.

That's the problem.

If that's the case...who do you propose to regulate it?

Who else? The government.

I'm not kidding.

Without repealing section 239 then we don't have ANY recourse in dealing with these companies.

At least with laws in place we have SOMETHING to work around.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: olaru12

Leave privately held corporations alone and let the marketplace decide their fate. It's called Capitalism. Do you really want a social socialist media?

We already have a social socialist media.

That's the problem.

If that's the case...who do you propose to regulate it?

The FCC, of course.

Look, these huge leftist conglomerates are shielded right now and can do whatever they want, play any political role they want, silence whomever they want.

You want capitalism?

Fine.

Let's level the playing field and let ACTUAL capitalism come into play.

Fine if you're comfortable with a biden appointee, Jessica Rosenworcel being in control....let see how it works itself out.

Careful what you wish for....

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Ohanka

Fine, turn social media over to the FCC during a democratic controlled WH, house and senate. They will probably even allow more free speech.

Them being accountable to someone is better than them being accountable to no one.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My thoughts on all this, and net neutrality: there is no world in which it is right that companies can utilize the fruits of public investment to deny the public basic constitutionally protected rights.

We paid for the internet. We probably paid for a lot of the development of Facebook. Those assholes got rich using our infrastructure. Just keep that in mind.

not probably, we paid.

In-Q-Tel is the original major funder of Facsist book

originally posted by: carewemust
Will this be good or bad for the mega platform being constructed by the Trump family?

It could be a bit of both.

originally posted by: zardust

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My thoughts on all this, and net neutrality: there is no world in which it is right that companies can utilize the fruits of public investment to deny the public basic constitutionally protected rights.

We paid for the internet. We probably paid for a lot of the development of Facebook. Those assholes got rich using our infrastructure. Just keep that in mind.

not probably, we paid.

In-Q-Tel is the original major funder of Facsist book

Then you know the people behind the curtain and the FCC answers to them. Down the rabbit hole eh?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Klassified

He's correct.
These companies must either be a public hosting platform or a news media site and follow the rules of the one they choose.

Today they are claiming protection from both.

They have certainly played both ends against the middle long enough. I think it's time to pin them down.

a reply to: Ohanka
Definitely epic. I gotta save that one.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My thoughts on all this, and net neutrality: there is no world in which it is right that companies can utilize the fruits of public investment to deny the public basic constitutionally protected rights.

We paid for the internet. We probably paid for a lot of the development of Facebook. Those assholes got rich using our infrastructure. Just keep that in mind.

I'm not sure who you think "we" is in this case.

"The last major subsidy [for the internet] ended in 1995. Now, except for a few small, shrinking, and unnecessary federal grants, the Internet is a commercial concern. Telecommunications companies, computer companies, and Internet service providers (ISPs) built, own, and operate all the phone lines and computer networks that comprise the Net."

That was from SLATE magazine, 1996:

slate.com...

It's been non-governmental for a quarter of a century.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My thoughts on all this, and net neutrality: there is no world in which it is right that companies can utilize the fruits of public investment to deny the public basic constitutionally protected rights.

We paid for the internet. We probably paid for a lot of the development of Facebook. Those assholes got rich using our infrastructure. Just keep that in mind.

It's been non-governmental for a quarter of a century.

I don't think any govt. agency will touch social media considering how much in taxes they pay and their considerable lobbyist clout. I expect a serious hand spanking in the future but much ado about nothing.

So these social media companies are in fact "due facce" afterall 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
So these social media companies are in fact "due facce" afterall 😎

Absolutely, and they don't even hide it any more.

originally posted by: Klassified

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court will soon have “no choice but to deal” with how speech is controlled by a few private social media platforms.

We could be headed down a slippery slope with this one. On the one hand, I think twitter and facebook need to have a knot jerked in their tail. On the other hand, I question just how involved our federal government should be.

Thomas also suggested that social media companies could be subject to regulation as public hosting, although they are already covered by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Justice didn’t elaborate much on this argument, but he hinted that the platforms’ First Amendment rights might be limited to the extent that business owners can be forced to accept clients regardless of their location. race or religion.

Thomas said that major protection for Internet businesses, known as Section 230, highlights the role of social media companies as common carriers. He also argued that some courts abuse this provision to immunize “bad faith” decisions to remove content posted by third parties.

According to the article, what this boils down to is a declaration by congress that the social media giants are public carriers, which would require them to host ALL customers regardless of their view if they are to continue being protected under section 230. Any ruling made by the SCOTUS, and any legislation passed by house and senate, is going to affect all social media, including ATS.

What differentiates a private company from a public utility or carrier?
Should social media be put in the same category as telecommunications companies?
Should twitter and facebook have to bake you a wedding cake even if they don't agree with your lifestyle choices?

Link

HA!!! Thomas would just have to eat it on this one. Reap what sow I guess.

originally posted by: xuenchen
So these social media companies are in fact "due facce" afterall 😎

They have a lot more than 2 faces. Odds are 1 of them knows exactly who you are.

Dark webs still free.

The tech giants are actually bottom feeder fish. Just stop using the
Service/utility/ convenience service. They are only as goo as a user base kind of like a you tube channel is only as prominent as their subscription base. I don’t have any of these things and I have managed to survive A ok just get rid of it and see what happens to them.

originally posted by: Brotherman
Dark webs still free.

The tech giants are actually bottom feeder fish. Just stop using the
Service/utility/ convenience service. They are only as goo as a user base kind of like a you tube channel is only as prominent as their subscription base. I don’t have any of these things and I have managed to survive A ok just get rid of it and see what happens to them.

Every member of ATS could boycott every social media site and it wouldn't amount to more than a fart in a hurricane.

Face book alone has 2.6 billion members world wide. Who can control something like that? They are the hurricane!

Banning someone for having an opposing view is pure cowardice. Spineless and cowardice.

Social media should ALWAYS be a safe platform for openly engaging in free speech. Some liberals need a healthy reminder that free speech ISN'T a one-way street...

a reply to: Klassified

He is actually right, he has been seating as a judge long enough to know how the constitutional rights of citizens in the US have to be protected by the highest court of the land.

The supreme court judges purpose is to protect our nations laws, something all the crappy social media money sucking CEOs, seems to forget about, after all these money making scammers think they are above the law.

I’m not super smart on this topic, but I don’t see why internet communication is not the same as phone communication. I can say what I want. If the company disagrees, it doesn’t matter, nor do they have liability for my conversation. But I am legally liable for anything illegal I do while in that conversation. This is how all interpersonal communication should be.

The job of the social media provider should be to make sure anyone who does not wish to see or join in the conversation has the ability to “hang up” (ignore, unfriend, leave the conversation, block people, etc.).

Again, I apologize if my legal understanding is not correct— just speaking from my general knowledge of how a phone conversation has worked (and believe me, there have been many Twitter-bannable conversations that the phone company never intervened) and applying it to all forms of communication.