Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah, I initially looked at it and saw it wasn't web. But I did respond to someone pushing the social media narrative of change. Whining and politics may well bring it to the web, down the road. I hope the country doesn't allow it but the people don't get to decide.

originally posted by: havok
You don't have free speech on social media if they can censor your speech on their own whim.

The power these companies hold (tech companies being far left) and harbor is far too consolidated in the hands of few. They can edit messages (see the reddit scam of 2017) and censor or ban any topic they deem offensive or wrong. In some cases, ruining careers or livelyhoods along the way.

It's not free speech if these social media companies can silence your dissidence.

I think there's some confusion about "freedom of speech."

"Freedom of speech" means the government can't limit a topic of discussion. But on private forums and webistes open to the public, you certainly can set rules about what's allowed and what isn't (no matter how arbitrary) and you can enforce these rules and even ban people from using your service.

So, yes, social media companies are within their rights. You can go to another social media platform and talk about things that Twitter (etc) ban there. Nobody's stopping you from creating a media company focused on these very topics. You can even use services and platforms in a different country for these activities.

That's freedom of speech.

Now, if you are in China, the government DOES regulate internet traffic and topics and you are blocked by the government from reaching certain sites and certain platforms, no matter how innocent your intentions are. THAT is a case where there is not freedom of speech.

And then there is this wee fed law...

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

-- LINK

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Are you aware that the 2nd district Court of Appeals said the channel was liable.

SCOTUS just heard the case in February. Now the decision is pending .

The second district Court of Appeals ruling should carry weight in the supreme court .

The first amendment right in this lawsuit has been upheld a couple times. The appeal to the Supreme Court is on whether MCA is a private or public entity .

If the Supreme Court upholds the 2nd District courts decision that a cable news channel is public. It must give anyone a platform exercise their First Amendment rights .

It could also apply to all social media platforms by setting precedent .

5 to 4 this could be a real humdinger.

I can’t wait .


PS many people agree that if the second districts opinion is upheld . It’s going to turn the Internet into the wild west .

Twitter, google, facebook, reddit or other social media sites shouldn't be deciding what speech they will allow. Long as you don't break the law in the country you live in, you should be free to voice your opinion. Social media sites shouldn't be banning people for not calling a trans woman a woman or if the person voices the opinion that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete in women sports. If anyone offended by someones opinion, don't read what they have to say.

Reddit uses ghost bans to hide opinions they don't like, when your not logged in, comments won't show up. They will restrict you to one comment every 5-8mins too.

a reply to: Echo007

So you're saying ATS shouldn't be allowed to moderate itself to restrict speech that they don't like?

Private entities regulate speech all the time. It isn't unconstitutional or illegal. There are only a handful of protected classes which aren't valid reasons to discriminate against someone, and being a hateful bigot isn't one of them.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
It could also apply to all social media platforms by setting precedent .

How? Are any social media platforms broadcasting publicly aired television?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I thought I link you the case law?

It all comes down to the decision between private entity and public entity . Public entities can be sued over the first amendment .

Edit;

My bad I didn’t give me any link . Here’s an article that links you to the case .

The direction the Supreme Court takes the Manhattan case will help define the limits of this type of argument. If the Court agrees with the Sixth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal, the definition of a “state actor” – or government actor – will be narrow and apply only in very limited circumstances. If the Court agrees with the Second Circuit, effectively overruling the Sixth and D.C. Circuit Courts, the definition of state actor will be broad and may provide an attack for those who argue that social media platforms are public forums.

www.alec.org...[editby ]edit on 5-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)