Republicans threaten to break up Facebook after Oversight Board decision

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Your judgement is clouded.

I said I knew the original decision DID have to do with a town in Alabama.

Stop trying to back pedal.

Me:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The case you cited is from 1946 and deals with company-owned towns.

You:

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

You clearly said my statement is incorrect. The cited case has no bearing on the internet and there have been previously rulings on the internet, none of them making a public entity operating on the internet liable for First Amendment adherence.

You need to stop conflating the internet itself with sites operating on said internet.

Oh boo hoo, poor wittle wefties upset that their beloved Facebook is under attack

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is what happens when you snip a quote out of a sentence.

You said:

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

I replied:

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.

You were incorrect because the decision did not only apply to company owned towns, but is used as precedent in other cases as well. You stated that it deals with company owned towns (period). It deals with more and that is where you were incorrect.

You continue to insist no court ruling was ever made regarding free speech on the internet. The quote from the link in a previous post was from the ACLU who won their case. In the finding SCOTUS determined exactly what I quoted:

Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines.

emphasis added

Its right there in plain English. The internet is a free speech zone. I know it is contrary to your opinion but how can you argue that point when it is staring you in the face? Oh wait, I see how you argue that. You don't. You revert back to an old assertion and continue banging that drum instead.

As with many laws, the problem is not what the law says or how the courts interpret it. The problem is in the practical application. A privately owned company that operates as a public forum dependent upon the participation of the general public is not the same as a private property for personal use or a private business that sells products or services that do not require the participation of the general public. The courts made that distinction clear:

“...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.”

The problem is not that freedom of speech does not exist on the internet. The problem is in the practical application of the law in regards to defending that right. Consider this: painting blm on a street is a protected form of expression, even though it most likely violates city ordinance. Removing it or painting over it is not a protected expression but rather a hate crime.
link
So, defacing public property is a protected expression even though it is an illegal act. Removing it or painting over it with a slogan of your own is not a protected expression, it is a felony. Do you see the problem here? All of this results from limited infringements on one sides speech and unlimited tolerance for the others. The inequity is a violation itself.

Now add to that the concept that this particular inequity of enforcement is being used to gain political leverage and influence elections. That adds a whole new facet to this little gem. As an example I will say this: if I put an election sign in my front yard, on my own privately owned property for my personal use only, I must allow signs from opposing candidates to be placed there also. Free speech does not exist in a public forum intended for general public use like fb, but on private property like my own front yard, it does?

And that led me to my original question, "Why?"

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You were incorrect because the decision did not only apply to company owned towns...

It dealt with company-owned towns and had not precedent regarding websites.

You continue to insist no court ruling was ever made regarding free speech on the internet.

No. What I'm saying is you're conflating the internet with websites. The internet, in this ruling, is the same as the airwaves or print media and not in reference to individual TV stations or newspapers.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. What I'm saying is you're conflating the internet with websites. The internet, in this ruling, is the same as the airwaves or print media and not in reference to individual TV stations or newspapers.

That is a non-starter. Its like saying the SCOTUS ruled books have freedom of speech, except this one. The ruling does not mention any one specific outlet of this information because it applies to all of them. And in this case, that includes fb. The damning part of it for fb is that it would not exist if not for the expression of opinion from the general public. It is literally built upon that singular concept.

I don't know any patriots who would agree with any loss of free speech on any media. Yet it is obvious that free speech is not protected on fb. At least free speech contrary to the political views of fb is not. In the end my point is that SCOTUS rulings and the spirit of the law clearly allow for freedom of speech on the internet, and any other media. I believe it is disingenuous to assert our founding fathers had any limits to free speech in mind when they wrote the first amendment, regardless of media. This nation should embrace and enforce that concept at every opportunity. Any freedom lost is seldom regained.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
In the end my point is that SCOTUS rulings and the spirit of the law clearly allow for freedom of speech on the internet, and any other media.

FFS, I said that and I'm not disputing it, but the internet is not Facebook or ATS, it's a means of conveying data, just like newsprint is a means of conveying words.

Facebook doesn't have to conform to your ideals of free speech just like The New York Post doesn't have to publish op-eds you agree with.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well I agree with you on the FFS. But it should be aimed at you.

I never said the internet was fb! No one did. You have been arguing that point all by yourself.

I said, now pay attention this time, the SCOTUS said 'the internet' was a free speech zone. It follows to reason then, if fb is on the internet, which is a free speech zone, fb exists in a free speech zone. That means you should have free speech on fb. The SCOTUS did not identify the entire internet as a free speech zone 'except for fb'. They made no mention of exceptions of any kind. That would seem to indicate that wherever you are in that free speech zone you should have free speech. Including on fb.

Your example of the New York Post is complete bollox. No, they don't have to publish only op-eds I agree with. But they can't stop op-eds they disagree with either. Especially political ones. But fb, just another form of media, gets away with it. Its not about conforming to my ideals or only things I agree with. None of this depends on me personally. Its about everyone, the general public, and their freedom that should be enforced equally across all media.

I have done a lot of research on this in the last couple days. I found nothing that indicates fb has the right to limit free speech, not even the fact that they are a privately owned company. Like SCOTUS said, the more you open up private property to the public the more you are conscribed to the rights of the people who use it. You don't have to agree with that, but disagreeing doesn't make you right.

Have a nice diurnal anomaly.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I said, now pay attention this time, the SCOTUS said 'the internet' was a free speech zone.

The internet is not single websites, it's a means of information conveyance. When you have a Supreme Court ruling dealing with individual websites that compels them to permit any type of speech call me. But this wont happen as it's akin to compelling a newspaper to publish op-eds it doesn't want to.

But they can't stop op-eds they disagree with either. Especially political ones.

You just make that up? Wow. They can 100% pick and choose which ones they publish, it's in the name of the piece itself for chrissake.

Maybe educate yourself before trying to win an argument you already lost.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Drop the "internet is not a single website" crap. It is completely meaningless in this context. Television is not a single network yet the equal time rule applies to all. By your reasoning some networks can ignore that and others can not. SCOTUS determined the entire internet is a free speech zone. Not part of it. Not some entities that reside there but not others. The whole thing. That includes fb. That is a very simple common sense concept. As I said earlier, its not that free speech is not guaranteed, its that its not being enforced. The problem is not with the law its in the application.

Regarding the op-eds, I was thinking about the equal time rule mentioned above since this is largely regarding political influence. It is being pursued at this time, but as of now print media is not included in the equal time rule, though some states have legislated the opportunity to respond for political candidates. The internet is being considered for inclusion under the scope of application of the equal time rule as a broadcast media, however it does not presently enjoy that status. My apologies for not being more clear.

I won this quite a while ago. The only thing you still cling to is the "internet is not a single website" nonsense, which is utterly meaningless. Television is not a single network. Radio waves are not a single station. Print media is not a single newspaper. Yet the rules for each media apply to all. Or at least, that is the idea. Unfortunately, equity of application is lacking and that was my original point.

Sorry, but I cant continue this. You are unwilling to let go of a failed point of contention. Unless you have something better, this matter is settled - you lost. That doesn't mean fb has free speech, just that your argument failed. Both are possible concurrently you know...

If Republicans really wanted to take on Facebook they would frame their argument around the fourth ammendment instead of the first ammendment. They would probably be on equally shaky grounds but at least they would get a tone more support.

... but they don't really care about taking on Facebook do they.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Drop the "internet is not a single website" crap. It is completely meaningless in this context. Television is not a single network yet the equal time rule applies to all.

No, because you're wrong again.

The equal time rule is ultra specific in what it deals with; candidates for political office must be given the same amount of time and time slot as their opponent at the same price (if applicable). That's it.

It has nothing to do with a station allowing private citizens to air their views as they want.

SCOTUS determined the entire internet is a free speech zone. Not part of it.

The means of conveyance itself, not the individual websites.

That includes fb. That is a very simple common sense concept. As I said earlier, its not that free speech is not guaranteed, its that its not being enforced. The problem is not with the law its in the application.

Try saying whatever you want here, like Holocaust denial, and when your post gets removed file a civil suit and let us know what happens.

I won this quite a while ago.

No, you post untruths and then need to walk them back like you just did again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Last time.

Yes the equal time rule is ultra specific as you so dramatically described it. But you ignored the important part yet again:
it applies to all stations equally, not most except for just one. The equal time rule applies to the conveyance as you call it, which includes every network who resides there. If not the networks, who then would it apply to? Same thing for the internet being a free speech zone. The media is declared a free speech zone, which includes the residents of that media. If not them, who then does it apply to? And to extend that same thought, broadcast and cable networks also stream on the internet. That same rule still applies despite a different media. The further this is examined the more damning it is to your opinion. You insist, quite lamely, that the laws apply to the media itself but not the residents therein. The media itself expresses nothing. It is as you say a conveyance. Logic dictates that the laws then apply to the residents and users of that media.

I corrected one incorrect statement I made and explained why. There is no 'again'. The same can not be said for you.

First you said the word to pay attention to is "congress". That got shot down immediately. I showed it applied to the entire federal government as well as state governments. So you changed your argument then to private businesses and said the court never ruled the internet was a public forum. I proved that wrong as well. You then changed your tactic to the argument that the cited case refers to company owned towns only. I proved that was wrong as that decision is used as precedent in cases other than those against company owned towns. You stated again that the courts never determined that the internet was a free speech zone. I showed you reno vs. aclu in which the court determined the internet was a free speech zone. You ignored that and instead changed your argument back to insisting the law applies to the conveyance but not the entities which reside upon it. (nonsensical at best) You then used print media as an example. I incorrectly used the equal time rule as an example since this largely applies to political influence and corrected my statement. You again reverted to the SCOTUS remarks applying to the media not the individual companies that reside there. You then played the most lame card of all bringing 'holocaust denial' into it. That is just plain pathetic.

If the SCOTUS finding that the internet is a free speech zone does not apply to the entities that use the internet, please tell me who it does apply to. They made a ruling, it must apply to someone. Who then does this ruling apply to if not the people and businesses who use the internet?(1)

And you still have yet to address this:

“...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.”

I read that and get a clear picture of what it means since both the internet and fb are dependent on the people who use them for their existence. But then, I am not trying to distort it into something that supports a failed argument. Please tell me, what does that statement mean to you?(2)

For clarity' sake, I am soliciting two specific responses from you on two specific inquiries. (1) and (2) shown above. If you can successfully explain those two answers you will likely have changed my mind on this. I look forward to your response.

And before you say it, no, it does not just apply to the conveyance. That is the equivalent of the SCOTUS passing a national speed limit law for highways that does not apply to the vehicles that use that conveyance. Its a stupid argument and means nothing.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Yes the equal time rule is ultra specific as you so dramatically described it. But you ignored the important part yet again:

No, you ignored it, it only applies to political candidates, not private citizens looking to voice their opinion.

For your second point you're trying to apply precedent to a topic which is not been applied to nor do you know if it ever will. It's moot.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And you ignored the two specific questions I asked you, the only things I was interested in a response to.

You cant answer them because it would destroy your own argument.

I am finished here. And so are you.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I addressed you're failed argument. The internet isn't a single website, it's a means of conveyance and the Supreme Court has ruled on the free speech aspect in a very liberal manner.

That is the equivalent of the SCOTUS passing a national speed limit law...

The fact that you continually make ill informed comments like this (the Supreme Court doesn't pass laws), your op-ed nonsense and you're complete misunderstanding of the equal time law, shows you don't even know what the hell you're talking about.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I asked you two specific questions designed to force a direct response - with no bull#. You couldn't answer them without bull# so you didn't answer them at all. I will ask them again...

1) If the SCOTUS finding that the internet is a free speech zone does not apply to the entities that use the internet, please tell me who it does apply to. They made a ruling, it must apply to someone. Who then does this ruling apply to if not the people and businesses who use the internet?

2) “...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.”

I read that and get a clear picture of what it means since both the internet and fb are dependent on the people who use them for their existence. But then, I am not trying to distort it into something that supports a failed argument. Please tell me, what does that statement mean to you?

As for the SCOTUS not passing laws, its called allegory. You know damn well what it meant and so does everyone else who read it. No, SCOTUS does not pass laws, but SCOTUS issuing a ruling on a conveyance that does not apply to the entities who use that conveyance is the equivalent to passing a speed limit law that does not apply to the vehicles on that highway. The highway in this example is a conveyance, the vehicles are the users of that conveyance. The internet is a conveyance, the people and businesses on it are the users of that conveyance. Do you see the similarity? It is a very simple comparison, hence the word equivalent. Everyone understands this. Even my dog gets it, but then he's pretty bright. You, however, seem forever bound to the darkness.

Unless you will answer the two direct questions with direct answers, please don't respond at all. You been called out twice on two simple direct questions and you dropped your balls both times. Its just sad dude...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The internet is not single websites, it's a means of information conveyance. When you have a Supreme Court ruling dealing with individual websites that compels them to permit any type of speech call me. But this wont happen as it's akin to compelling a newspaper to publish op-eds it doesn't want to.

That is a really dumb - but more importantly, invalid - comparison.

Op-eds are submitted, some are accepted, and some are not. That is how they work, and anyone who submits them knows this.

Facebook posts are written by the users, and shared with other users, with zero permission required from any FB employee.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
1) If the SCOTUS finding that the internet is a free speech zone does not apply to the entities that use the internet, please tell me who it does apply to. They made a ruling, it must apply to someone.

As I already told you it applied to a public library preventing someone from accessing content on the internet.

As for the SCOTUS not passing laws, its called allegory.

Sure, brohan, you've been wrong about op-eds and the equal time rule, now this.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Facebook posts are written by the users, and shared with other users, with zero permission required from any FB employee.

The permission to post comes from Facebook when you accept their terms and conditions. The algorithms they use to flag posts also can get kicked up to an actual person for review.

Not really a complicated notion to comprehend if you aren't too busy being disingenuous.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fail.