There's No Free Speech In Social Media

Here's the version of this thread that doesn't pander to the S&F...

www.vox.com...

Q: What does the law actually say about the right of private companies like Twitter or Facebook to censor or ban users at will? Is it legal?

A: It is definitely legal. The First Amendment imposes very strict non-discrimination duties on government actors. So the government isn’t allowed to ban speech just because it wants to ban speech. There’s only going to be a limited set of cases in which it’s allowed to do that.

But the First Amendment only limits government actors, and no matter how powerful they are under current rules, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter are not going to be considered government actors. So constitutionally they have total freedom to do whatever they want with the speech on their platforms.

The only caveat here is that they can’t permit unlawful speech on their platforms, like child pornography or speech that violates copyright protections or speech that’s intended to communicate a serious threat or incite violence. Bun in those cases, it’s not the tech companies making the decision, it’s the courts.

So says a lawyer. I can look up more but they all say the same thing. Every site i checked. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Facebook can't be as woke as it wants to.

Yet Texas and Florida have it in their heads the government can force private companies to not censor at will... to stop the companies from censoring conservative opinion.

www.cnbc.com...

Do they need a refresher?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They do understand the "congress" part, right?

Sorry. There is no free speech on social media. Any social media. Not constitutionally. It is neither press nor government, but a private proprietor of a technological product that enables interaction. It's user base is worldwide.

You might as well legally go after the TV providers for not carrying centain channels. Legally, that's all they are. The company that provides the product you need to see your content.

*And* if they are to be classified as "press media" then you still can't tell them not to censor at will. They have freedom of speech, up to and including moderating the content they put out to their liberal-as-it-wants-to-be liking.

You might as well go after Breitbart and force them to have more liberal bias.

So either way.

Private Tech company or private press media company, they are free to censor their content at will.

The only way, at least in my mind, to force social media to NOT restrict any views is to buy it or nationalize it. Legitimately state owned, not conspiracy state owned. Like Public Access, or Local Government Channels, which can be government owned.

Then you, only after you own it or it qualifies as government, can force total opinion equality...

I want to see how wacky this Supreme Court really is. I wouldn't put this one past them either. In my mind there really is only The Elon Musk Way to force a social media platform to change it's moderation practices.

Buy Facebook. Buy YouTube.

Is there something I'm missing that makes it more constitutional to treat a company like a government or are people just crying because they keep getting banned for posting things deemed harmful or disruptive?

I don't know I can say whatever went to on ATS so it's free speech here anyway according to if you invite by the the POS I think it's called or whatever it is the TOS terms of service yeah so this is pretty cool site when you want to express yours on the site on the site.elf and your outlook and your insight your wisdom your anger your frustration and even if you bought wrong cat food your wife will forgive you

a reply to: Degradation33

Is there something I'm missing that makes it more constitutional to treat a company like a government or are people just crying because they keep getting banned for posting things deemed harmful?

Corporate rights equal individual rights, this is what trickle down economics can do for you! And we all know people with a lot of followers, who will be treated differently, but nobody wants to talk about the relationships of capitalist exploitation.

It's just "free speech" all the time. Big words, as if they'd exist in a vacuum.

a reply to: Insurrectile

What exact policy is trickle down economics?
Whose policy was it?

Or is it just a leftist talking point like "Our democracy"?

a reply to: musicismagic

Yet I have seen you have posts removed , like when you used a derogatory term for the Chinese

Speech and written word are different in my mind, I can say whatever I want right now in my living room, in the pub or to who ever, but I’ve never been under the impression I can go on a website and write the same things

As long as I can say what I want , I don’t care if I can’t type what I want online that’s far less important to me

Some will argue that Im wrong that’s fine but its just my opinion

a reply to: Degradation33

The problem comes from the federal government threatening these companies to ban people and speach that they find inconvenient.

If you were following the Missouri v. Biden case, you would see that these social media sites weren't censoring until they started getting badgered and threatened by federal agencies.

a reply to: Degradation33

Any corporation that favors one political ideology and censors another
to interfere in or change the outcome of an election. Should only be
seen as an organization that is disloyal to the US of A, to freedom as
well as the constitution. And should in itself be completely censored
by any every and all citizens of the United States of America. From
the oldest politicians to the newest born.

Not running a fair and open discussion in any form is unamerican.

And thru history only the really bad people feel they need to use a
censor.

a reply to: watchitburn

Just watch it burn and grant capital some more corporate rights. WTF should I care?

a reply to: UpThenDown

Lol. Not a response to me. Careful reading needed. Redacted..

The site can still censor my precious words all they want. Sh*t, I go out my way to make them unpopular now..

a reply to: watchitburn

Companies get pressured by the government to do a lot of things. Like with hiring practices. How they can operate and so forth. Or climate consciousness. No one has to go green or woke, but they sure are coerced. Sometimes directly by the government. Sometimes through discrimination or environmental law.

And I also wouldn't have a problem if the same coercion reversed and pushed conservative views. That needs to be noted. That's just how thing work. But only one wins out on the legal front. As said, corporate rights = individual rights.

I'd just rather see two more Elon Musk's buy Facebook and YouTube than pressured either way.

And I think Twitter (and other social media sites) didn't buy the election was stolen at all. It was seen as misinformation, and the anger surrounding was seen as dangerous. They banned it for being threatening and possibly illegal.

It only screwed up when you are absolutely sold on the righteousness and absolute truth about the stolen election. It's just perceived as tyrannical. It doesn't acknowledge the scenario where it's wrong.

** I'll return after a few pages of getting blasted for this...

This is a very smart thread! It gets the facts right. I am a proponent for free speech, but we need to look at the facts. One thing I might point out is that the government has been secretly telling tech companies what to censor, what does the law say about this?

a reply to: darkbake

what does the law say about this?

You mean one of those lobby-authored jokes that look really good on paper?
Who's telling whom what to do exactly here?

a reply to: Degradation33

That's just not accurate.

They didn't start censoring until the government started threatening and coercing them.

That's unconstitutional and illegal, which is why they have been barred from talking about content with social media companies while the case goes through the courts.

a reply to: Degradation33

Nice try. However law and freedom has to include everyone.
Sure they can be woke, however I call it having an agenda.
The law talks about banning hateful comments, yet truth expressed well is cancelled, whilst actual hate groups (blm) still are allowed to spew their agenda specific hate.

Also with not many other places to go to, it's like an evil dealer giving you free, good stuff and once you are entangled he gets to his real agenda.

The woke fascists have taken over almost everything because they think the are right.
Thing is the majority of sane adults know they are thinking like children.
Meanwhile these useful idiots are played by the NWO doing their dirty work.
Nobody with nothing to hide would ever cancel only one side.

That's an agenda and I can't see how anyone would cheer this on, because you WILL be next.

a reply to: watchitburn

Like this?

President Joe Biden's White House pushed Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to censor contrarian COVID-19 content, including speculation about the virus having escaped from a lab, vaccine skepticism, and even jokes.

And they were wrong... but Biden didn't actually force them to lie.

Just as citizens are afforded the right to associate with certain beliefs or people groups, businesses are also allowed to make this choice. A business owner has a right to support different groups or religious beliefs by making information available to his or her customers through flyers, signs, and other means.

The only constitutional rights violated were Meta's. And only if they were threatened and forced. They were just harassed and pressured via email. That's not unconstitutional, not illegal. Just persistent and annoying. Even reverse lobbying is not illegal.

They can always give you The National Security speech, It's often persuasive, but constitutional.

Still, nothing but an unwritten social code has them censoring even now. Still a decision to abide by pressuring emails. Still not illegal to highly suggest anything. And the platform users don't have constitutional rights to free speech here on the platform so...

Wouldn't be wrong for a republican to strongly recommend the reverse either.

But the courts mandating equality of politics is trampling on the corporate first amendment right to affiliation to ANY CAUSE. Even if The "WEF controlled CDC" shamed and scared everyone into wrongly flagging disinfo and taking that position. it was still just a suggestion to comply.

It was dynamic and people are reactive morons. I wouldn't expect anything less.

a reply to: Degradation33

Still, nothing but an unwritten social code has them censoring even now. Still a decision to abide by pressuring emails. Still not illegal to highly suggest anything.

Except for the loss of ad-revenue, of course. Well documented revenue, what we call material conditions.

The only constitutional rights violated were Meta's.

That is the core of the issue, innit? Good thing the constitution was written with corporate rights in mind, a lot of CEO's would have to pick up a real job if it wasn't.

a reply to: Degradation33

Sorry, you're wrong.

The judge trying the case has already ruled that the government violated the law just based on the limited discovery that's come out during the pretrial motions.

That's why he issued the order barring the government from talking to the social media companies about content.

And the 5th circuit court of appeals upheld his ruling. It's now at the SCOTUS.

a reply to: Insurrectile

That's just other companies making corporate decisions. Once it's decided my concensus the CDC is right, it's a cascade of people pulling into line so they don't don't lose add revenue themselves..

The reason Meta loses add revenue are the companies not wanting to associate with a platform that may hurt their profit margins.

It's not like there are thugs telling them "you either censor misinformation spreading Republicans or we force other companies to pull their add revenue."

(I guess that depends actually... see next comment.)

It all happens by the power of herd behavior. Once the CDC was deemed the authority (under Trump) it was their core of influence that guided everything then on.

a reply to: watchitburn

What revelations?

What did they do beyond persistent emails? Blackmail? Cuz if it goes beyond just suggestions they screwed up...

I know they e-mail bombed them and sent people to talk to them, but that's legal, if they don't make it contingent or threaten them.

What did the pretrial reveal? How far did they overstep to get Meta to censor people? Must been enough to constitute harassment or blackmail.

Even still, it doesn't matter.

Why would Meta having their rights violated to censor for the left be made right by having no rights to affiliation at all?

Yeah they might have had their rights violated if Biden overstepped, but forcing no political affiliation IS ALSO A VIOLATION..

That's where I am confused..

We strip them of their rights altogether because they had them violated to censor republicans?

"The court order to protect your rights violated by Biden is we strip you of your constitutional rights to affiliation altogether!"

That seems illogical.

the us constitution does not apply globally, its courts are also not global courts of arbitration thus private us companies are bound by different laws globally., As some their constitutions are living their boundaries are constantly tested in courts, so0 freedom of expression is still evolving..

worth noting that many legal concepts are unique to the us and as such don't translate outside of the us, in many private companies rights do not override people rights, they don't have a right to discriminate because they are Americans or Americans wouldn't approve.. that would be most of the women here on terf island banned from ever speaking again if that was true..

but its why many countries are writing new laws to punish social media platforms for breaking local laws even if not illegal in the us..

a reply to: Degradation33

No it's not legal.

The government can not tell someone to limit your speach.