Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: gortex


Hah, it is pretty funny watching these people shout their dribble while shaking their fists at the sky in a blind rage that has sold to them online in corners like this, and then simply furrow their brows in a confused kind of frustration at their own ineptitude.

It seems that none his most ardent supporters are capable of building a functioning digital platform, hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Both Gates and Facebook Unit stole their technology from others.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Republicans should not have to force free speech into this private company. A "social platform" should be based on and adherent to free speech - for everyone, not just the chosen political view.

IF the source of the "social platform" is government-controlled.

Isn't a platform that censors one sides speech while proliferating the other by definition anti-social? If you call yourself a social platform then being social is kind of a requirement. Not to mention the fact that even a private company must still obey the law of the land. Which leads me to a point I need to research... All businesses are bound by federal law for hiring, safety, etc. And these businesses must also obey the laws of any state they conduct business in. So if they have to follow federal law on safety, discrimination, etc, why get a free pass on the First Amendment?

Does the GOP have the wherewithal to take on Silicone Valley? Backing, finances etc etc. SV has a LOT of power and I am not sure an American Political (left OR right) party can take on that 900 pound gorilla.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
So if they have to follow federal law on safety, discrimination, etc, why get a free pass on the First Amendment?

The First Amendment begins with this important qualifier:

Congress shall make no law...

The bolded word is the one you should pay attention to.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You can be social in an echo chamber. I'm missing the validity of your point.

As for your question about the First Amendment, AugustusMasonicus summed it up quite nicely.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
So if they have to follow federal law on safety, discrimination, etc, why get a free pass on the First Amendment?

The First Amendment begins with this important qualifier:

Congress shall make no law...

The bolded word is the one you should pay attention to.

There is a bit more to it than that...

While the first amendment mentions congress by name it is upheld by the supreme court that it also includes the rest of the federal government. The due process clause and the 14th amendment extend those protections to state governments as well.

The degree of freedom is also determined by the forum in which it takes place. The concept is not limited strictly to government, federal or state, funded or owned property. This leads to the quasi-public property perspective.

...in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it.

Which led to this court finding:

“...the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

A business like fb that calls itself a "public forum" and opens itself to use by anyone who can create a user account should be held to the same standards as any other forum usable by the general public. By definition, forums in which freedom of expression is protected.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
There is a bit more to it than that...

While the first amendment mentions congress by name it is upheld by the supreme court that it also includes the rest of the federal government. The due process clause and the 14th amendment extend those protections to state governments as well.

Which still doesn't mean it applies to private businesses or citizens but with very few and very well defined exceptions. This isn't one of them.

The case you cited is from 1946 and deals with company-owned towns. The Supreme Court has ruled on the internet and it took a very dim view of government restriction to the point where the state couldn't even block child pornography in a public library. Further, the Court has not even ruled that the internet itself is a public forum on the whole let alone individual websites.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
There is a bit more to it than that...

While the first amendment mentions congress by name it is upheld by the supreme court that it also includes the rest of the federal government. The due process clause and the 14th amendment extend those protections to state governments as well.

Which still doesn't mean it applies to private businesses or citizens but with very few and very well defined exceptions. This isn't one of them.

Yet. It’s being used to cancel and silence a specific groups first amendment rights. And silence opposition during elections. I would say Facebook needs broken up for the fact they have a monopoly on controlling information.

Facebook is a social network monopoly that buys, copies or kills competitors, antitrust committee finds

www.cnbc.com...

I do find it appalling people support Facebook.

originally posted by: neutronflux
I would say Facebook needs broken up for the fact they have a monopoly on controlling information.

You should look up the word 'monopoly' because they don't have one on controlling information, not even on the internet.

I get they make you a sad panda but that's not really a legal basis for doing anything.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
I would say Facebook needs broken up for the fact they have a monopoly on controlling information.

You should look up the word 'monopoly' because they don't have one on controlling information, not even on the internet.

I get they make you a sad panda but that's not really a legal basis for doing anything.

Then. Please by all means prove my cited source wrong.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I guess by your logic, the Mob didn’t need broken up because their protection racket wasn’t a monopoly on insurance.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And I think this was the long desired road of hate speech laws. To take normal questioning attitudes, and being able to demonize such attitudes to soften people’s stance on the first amendment...

originally posted by: neutronflux
Then. Please by all means prove my cited source wrong.

LOL. Three replies for one post again.

Your own source proves you wrong, you claimed Facebook has a monopoly on information, it doesn't.

Can you put on news network? Can you pick up a paper? Listen to the news on the radio? Listen to the news on a podcast? Read it in a periodical? Yeah? Not a monopoly on news. Not even a monopoly of news on the internet.

Go reread the definition of 'monopoly' again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The case you cited is from 1946 and deals with company-owned towns.

You are incorrect in that the original decision was due to a company owned town, but the decision, like all supreme court decisions, is precedent used in other cases to prevent retrying the same type of case over and over again. So the matter is not whether it is a company owned town, but whether the forum is public or not and to what degree the forum depends on the public for its existence. In the case of fb it would not exist at all were it not for the public expressing opinions. Which leads back to:

“...the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”

We both know this is not being enforced as first amendment protected speech. My question is, based on the findings of the supreme court, why? Its not congress. Its not federal or state laws. Its a public forum constructed for the purpose of the exchange of information by the public. It meets all the criteria of the supreme courts decisions. And I think you would be hard pressed to find people who think fb is right in censoring conservative speech regardless of how tame it is and allowing liberal speech no matter how inflammatory it is.

There is also the spirit of the law to be considered. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law coexist which leads to interpretation:

When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law.

I think its fair to say the framers of our Constitution did not intend for freedom of speech to be limited or curtailed in any venue. As such, the idea of a private company, whose very existence depends on public expression, censoring political speech of the opposing view is not aligned with the spirit of the first amendment.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sigh.

And I also asked.

I guess by your logic, the Mob didn’t need broken up because their protection racket wasn’t a monopoly on insurance.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Why was Bell Systems broken up again?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You are incorrect in that the original decision was due to a company owned town...

Do your research, then we can talk:

Marsh v. Alabama

Annotation

Primary Holding
The First Amendment prohibits a law against distributing religious literature in a company-owned town without receiving permission from the town's management because this is essentially state action.
Facts
The Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation owned Chickasaw, Alabama in its entirety as a company town. It resembled any other American town in other respects. Marsh distributed literature supporting her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness in the streets of Chickasaw without obtaining permission from Gulf. Under the Alabama law of criminal trespass, she was prohibited from remaining on the premises of another private party after having been warned to leave, which she had been. Appealing her conviction, Marsh argued that the state law violated the First Amendment.

originally posted by: neutronflux
And I also asked.

I'm not interested in what you ask, as you are well ware, I don't have any intention of answering your questions.

You made a false statement, again, and I showed you why. If you cannot accept that it's your problem.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neutronflux
And I also asked.

I'm not interested in what you ask, as you are well ware, I don't have any intention of answering your questions.

You made a false statement, again, and I showed you why. If you cannot accept that it's your problem.

Why don’t you answer why Bell systems was broken up....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You

You made a false statement, again, and I showed you why. If you cannot accept that it's your problem.

Quote with cited proof I made a false statement.

Not your gaslighting.