There's No Free Speech In Social Media

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

Now, going forward, do you feel the precedent of forcing social media to NOT censor views is a coonsituationally valid precedent to set?

If the company is accepting statutory liability protections? Yes. Absolutely.

Okay, Meta lost privileges accepting shielding, but what about going forward?

Do they still enjoy said protections? Then yes. Absolutely.

Are we going to set a precedent axing corporate identity so this doesn't happen again and several governments can't collude through email to stifle dissenting opinion on social media.

Not sure what you mean by 'axing corporate media'?

So section 230. Do those pretections make them default government agency? Is ATS?

The protection is a 25+ year old law shielding tech companies and service providers from the content users post. Why not just remove the shielding to preserve corporate rights? Less government right? Why is this the instance more oversight and regulation is wanted?

The Above Network or those who own this site lose many rights to moderation along with Meta. That law providing shielding to Meta shields ATS owners as well. In the event of a ruling, moderators could no longer enforce T/S here except those mandated because they recieve protection.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone has to self-regulate without protection.

Should ATS come under a Supreme Court ruling for how sites receiving protection for their user-posted content are regulated?

And why did this rarely come up the first 20 years of that law?

I'd rather see SEVERAL BIAS social media platforms then several egalitarian ones.

I also think its hilarious my oh so precious opinion, on its own, really doesn't matter unless it incites violence. No one has to accept or host it. Thry can kick me off for no reason, and it is fine by me. That's freedom too.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl
So section 230.

Among others...

Do those pretections make them default government agency? Is ATS?

No, are you under the mistaken belief that I said or believed they did?

The 25+ year old law shielding tech companies and service providers from the content users post?

The intent of the law is to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, preventing platforms from being held legally liable for things that people say on their platforms - but only in so much as said platforms do not engage in content control (beyond restricting purely illegal content).

Why not just remove the shielding to preserve corporate rights?

Corporations do not have Rights, only living, breathing people have Rights.

Corporations are legal fictions, creatures of the State. They have only privileges bestowed by their creator (government) which does not and can bestow Rights.

And yes, I know that the Supreme Court said otherwise, I don't care, they were and are wrong.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl
So section 230.

Among others...

Do those pretections make them default government agency? Is ATS?

No, are you under the mistaken belief that I said or believed they did?

The 25+ year old law shielding tech companies and service providers from the content users post?

The intent of the law is to facilitate the free exchange of ideas, preventing platforms from being held legally liable for things that people say on their platforms - but only in so much as said platforms do not engage in content control (beyond restricting purely illegal content).

Why not just remove the shielding to preserve corporate rights?

Corporations do not have Rights, only living, breathing people have Rights.

Corporations are legal fictions, creatures of the State. They have only privileges bestowed by their creator (government) which does not and can bestow Rights.

And yes, I know that the Supreme Court said otherwise, I don't care, they were and are wrong.

Fair enough. You are free to maintain corporations don't have the rights of people. 2 of 12 items on the next session's agenda deal with this. The implications, though, if the Supreme Court rules against a corporation's right to politically affiliate, and force all the snowflake voices to be heard, will be a Pastafarian/TST playground.

Like carte blanche to troll any site and be offensive, so long as its not illegal.

Also opens the door to try to sue places like Chick-fil-A to stay open on Sundays, or close Wednesdays and Saturdays, to not show preference for any one ideal in their corporate identity. Because they also shouldn't recieve government shielding to be overtly christian.

And if corporations don't have any rights, why does Chick-fil-A get to be all Jesusy with their corporate identity?

On a personal note, I feel the Declaration of independence messed up calling them inalienable rights "endowed by a creator". Different time. I appreciate the magical thinking and freedom to think that, but don't feel my rights are divine in this indifferent universe. Or that they really matter. Maybe a creator gave others theirs in their minds, but creator didn't give me sh*t in mine.

The aristocratic/chauvinistic/deist white males who wrote down my fluffy intrinsic privileges guaranteed that. And that actually didn't even apply until the 19th amendment.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I think it already is, but "sanitized".

a reply to: tanstaafl

I mean try it. Go to your supermarket center aisle and yell "He's got a gun. Run!"... when there isn't one ..but? I have my very own freedom of speech to say anything, anything to anyone! So...fooled ya!*. Nope. Illegal. Incitement. Misdemeanor I believe.

"But, I should be able to say what...." Ok. Karen. Karls in the car.😏

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl
2 of 12 items on the next session's agenda deal with this.

Next session? OF Congress? Do tell - what are these 2 'items'?

The implications, though, if the Supreme Court rules against a corporation's right to politically affiliate, and force all the snowflake voices to be heard, will be a Pastafarian/TST playground.

Corporations are bound and limited by their Corporate Charter.

There are all kinds of Corporations.

We are talking specifically about Social Media Corporations/platforms. Very different from a Corpopration that manufactures cars, or blankets, or machine parts.

Like carte blanche to troll any site and be offensive, so long as its not illegal.

Social Media Platforms have all had sane and rational - and yes, completely legal ToS that regulate behavior - ie, against being rude and obnoxious, etc - and I have no problem with those, as long as they are fairly applied.

Also opens the door to try to sue places like Chick-fil-A to stay open on Sundays,

BS. Not even in the same universe. You are so full of hyperbole it is seeping out of your fingertips.

And if corporations don't have any rights, why does Chick-fil-A get to be all Jesusy with their corporate identity?

Because it is in their Corporate Charter.

Maybe a creator gave others theirs in their minds, but creator didn't give me sh*t in mine.

The Creator doesn't require your belief or cooperation to be real.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Next session? OF Congress? Do tell - what are these 2 'items'?

Supreme Court session. 12 items, 2 of which may deal with this topic. Sorry to not specify.

We are talking specifically about Social Media Corporations/platforms. Very different from a Corpopration that manufactures cars, or blankets, or machine parts.

Not as far as rights to establish corporate identity along political and religious lines. And no more or less than ATS.

Honestly what happens at ATS if they rule against Meta? If they rule every opinion has to be allowed so long as it doesn't break the law, what happens here? (Below)

BS. Not even in the same universe. You are so full of hyperbole it is seeping out of your fingertips.

How so? And why not? We are talking about forcing a private company to not refuse service for any reason, like not censoring conservatives and refusing them service for being conservative.. Thats all Biden-Influenced Facebook is doing. Refusing service for whatever reason they want. Any business can do the same. For any politics and politician they want too. Can even ban everyone with a rainbow.

We gotta deem social media as government entities to change that, I think.

I don't see why corporate social media is different than corporate fast food.

But let's put it in the same exact universe.

If the Supreme Court rules against Meta (forces no censorship), then EVERY US based forum and social media on the web (protected by that 25 year old law) becomes subject to that same forced egalitarianism.

After that, no view (not advocating violence) can be censored. Now I could legally fight having "posts removed to prevent thread drift" because they are not upholding my right to even an off-topic opinion. As selective TC enforcement has been overruled.

Would that not be an implication of this if the Supreme Court rules a certain way?

I feel its like a segue to directly regulate the exchange of ideas rather than protect it. They'll stop conservative opinion from getting banned, but open the flood gates of regulation on all internet-based media properties of any type.

The Creator doesn't require your belief or cooperation to be real.

Ha. And I'm subject to this? Are my rights actually guaranteed by this fanciful abstraction? Legally guaranteed by a floating sky creature?

I am not subject to this, l can omit "under god", "so help me god", and all reference to said creator at will... not like I can be held in contempt for doing so.

My opinion is the "inalienable" part was a belief of the founders. An inflection not in any way connected to what is verifiable. A well worded way to say, "We feel god endowed the right to chose to be independent from God's Former Country, England."

To say, "England doesn't tell us what we can do, because God is actually above the state! Manifest destiny, blah blah blah and so on."

Then go out of their way to write a secular constitution.

It was a device to to commit treason, in my mind, in a world where 99.99% still absolutely affirmed said abstraction to exist.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: tanstaafl

I mean try it. Go to your supermarket center aisle and yell "He's got a gun. Run!"... when there isn't one ..

In places that aren't toxic liberal wastelands, that's a good way to get yourself shot.

Yelling about a man with a gun in a building full of men with guns...
Maybe try shutting your mouth and minding your business

a reply to: lordcomac

I carry everyday for over 40 years. Believe me. In line, I never say nothin. Don't need too

I'm looking at this through the angle of Chicago politics and their corruption.

Yep, people are free to ban whatever they want on their websites

Just like people in Chicago are "free" to choose who gets their contracts and who they employ

This doesn't mean politicians don't use their power to get contracts and jobs for their friends.

The same techniques are being used to control free speech.

Here is the intimidation statute in Illinois - most States have something similar - Note # 6

(720 ILCS 5/12-6) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-6)
Sec. 12-6. Intimidation.
(a) A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts:
(1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened or

any other person or on property; or
(2) Subject any person to physical confinement or

restraint; or
(3) Commit a felony or Class A misdemeanor; or
(4) Accuse any person of an offense; or
(5) Expose any person to hatred, contempt or

ridicule; or

6 Take action as a public official against anyone or anything, or withhold official action, or cause such action or withholding; or
(7) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott or

other collective action.
(b) Sentence.
Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and not more than 10 years.

a reply to: Degradation33

If the social media clowns act and behave like publishers, rather than portals, there is the option to attempt to sue their asses off. I think the section 230 protection drops away.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: tanstaafl

Not as far as rights to establish corporate identity along political and religious lines. And no more or less than ATS.

None of which have anything to do with the issue under discussion.

If media companies want to enjoy the liability protections of section 230, they can not act as publishers, only as platforms. They can not pick and choose what can and cannot be said - again, with the exception of explicitly illegal speech (child porn, etc) - if they do, they lose such protections and can now be sued. Period.

I'm ignoring the rest of your hyperbolic response since it is just repeating the same fallacious argument, ignoring the fact that Section 230 protections are the key differentiating factor. Chik-Fil-A doesn't enjoy such protections.

Honestly what happens at ATS if they rule against Meta? If they rule every opinion has to be allowed so long as it doesn't break the law, what happens here? (Below)

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Yes

a reply to: Annee

Then the censored version would be for you

a reply to: tanstaafl

If media companies want to enjoy the liability protections of section 230, they can not act as publishers, only as platforms. They can not pick and choose what can and cannot be said - again, with the exception of explicitly illegal speech (child porn, etc) - if they do, they lose such protections and can now be sued. Period.

www.pbs.org...

Section 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services' own standards, so long as they are acting in “good faith.”

And who dictates their "own standards?" The angry conservatives getting banned off the platforms for obsessive crying over transsexuals, voting machines, and something a f%$#@ letter said?

What if their "own standards" don't need freaking coercion or files of emails to consider that a threat? Maybe that's moot because everything they did was legal even if persuaded. Maybe they just saw it as wrong (as in misinformation), and a threat to the company to allow it. Maybe it was in their "good faith" to not perpetuate a falsehood. One turning your standard-faire East County Christian Nationalist (with a self fulfilling prophecy) into a truth warrior and ideological martyr.

I saw it as purposeful, deceptive, and manipulative BS designed to incite exactly what it did, without needing to be told to think that. Others may have done so as well.

In any case, it appears platforms can enjoy 230 protections and still censor what they want.

People may just not like their "own standards" or "good faith".

a reply to: Degradation33

us private companies can not censor what they want, as they can not apply us laws outside the us.. its where Americans fall down time and time again as there are different legal processes and precedents to follow.

you specifically mention gender critical views, these are protected beliefs in English case law, just as belief in gender is protected thus a private company has to navigate both sides without discriminating against either regardless of what some meaningless corporate policy says this is not the Victorian age where a corporates can impose their social views on the world, many of the issues we face in the west and on social media platforms in general is what happens now we on the other side of no debate, as most corporate policies have been shaped by no debate they'll need to evolve.

in particular where corporates, companies, ngos, entities have discriminatory mission statements. they'll have to amend them going forward as all the big ones have done many times as we elvolve, or risk decline..

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: tanstaafl

I mean try it. Go to your supermarket center aisle and yell "He's got a gun. Run!"... when there isn't one ..but? I have my very own freedom of speech to say anything, anything to anyone! So...fooled ya!*. Nope. Illegal. Incitement. Misdemeanor I believe.

"But, I should be able to say what...." Ok. Karen. Karls in the car.😏

as legal precedents go the shouting fire in a theatre is unique to us law, in some legal jurisdictions it'd be an obligation if the personal felt it true.. its then down to the law to prove otherwise in court.

an example the smash edo group filmed themselves breaking into an Israeli arms factory in Brighton, they filmed themselves destroying the factory, they got caught, pleaded guilty but with a lawful excuse that their actions protected lives and the court found on the side of their lawful excuse dismissing the charges.

a lot of legal precedents hinge on belief and intent.. if those 2 tests are passed I'm sure an obligation sits with the person to yell gun or fire rather than remain silent, I'd assume that even us courts are not that blind..

a reply to: Degradation33

Mass media and big capital have their hooks in the print industry already, why expect a different outcome with digital media when the circumstances didn't change?

I saw it as purposeful, deceptive, and manipulative BS designed to incite exactly what it did, without needing to be told to think that. Others may have done so as well.

That's how expanding markets look like most of the time, you'd have to take corporations out of the picture entirely to not have some PR department drive up the sales statistics.

Yotube was different back then, without any monetized content, wasn't it?

a reply to: Insurrectile

I'd suggest the no debate period shaped as lot of these company, ngo, corporate mission statement what happens now we are on the other side of no debate will be interesting.. the really big boys and girls risk going the way of the various east India companies, we've passed the too big to fail phase and approach the too big not to break up..

a reply to: nickyw

I may be wrong, and I'm sure I'll be told that, but... no.. just no...

The platforms hosting everyone's precious, even foreign views, are not bastions for free speech. Free Speech in this regard applies to making your own damn platform and regulating THAT how you want.

This is as guest of someone else's property. They are nice enough to put out a platform for everyone's snowflake opinion, and should have the right to have a corporate opinion. They should have the right to hold that certain right wing views are CURRENTLY dangerous, and be able to moderate them, no matter how much it fans conspiracy's flame, or shuts The absolute Truth of Evangelicals up for once.

It is actually borderline freaking ridiculous.

I see them as protected to "unfairly stifle conservative opinion if it is subjectively determined dangerous." Maybe tell them to go on one of the ones that won't censor them? Stop demanding everyone placate their sensitivities.

Here's the rant part:

Unfortunately this rests in the hands of Judiciary that is at its most bias point in its existence, and having a Supreme Court with the audacity to cite a 1600s judge as precedence for the role of women in American society. AND IT WAS JUST TO BE A JACKASS AND RUB IT IN. (IMO)

I'm sorry, but that dated heteronormative BS can learn to deal with female primacy.