Yes and do you believe they have a right to say it on your private platform?I may not agree with what they say, but I will fight for their right to say it.
Obviously not to include threats and such.....
Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
Yes and do you believe they have a right to say it on your private platform?I may not agree with what they say, but I will fight for their right to say it.
Obviously not to include threats and such.....
Okay, well in that case we disagree. Although the SCOTUS didn't rule that the internet is a sidewalk, just that a sidewalk in a company town is public (per you). There would have to be another case to expand that. My personal opinion is that a social media network or blogging site is no more public than a newspaper or TV station. That is, none of these entities are obligated to broadcast a message.Their right supercedes my ownership if that is the modern day equivalent of the sidewalk. According to the SCOTUS anyways. The price of being a global corporation with massive reach.
Moreover they are a corporation behaving as a Super PAC, and thus are breaking the law.
Marsh v. Alabama was cited in the case of Cyber Promotions v. America Online in 1998. Where AOL was blocking mass e-mails by Cyber Promotions to AOL clients. The courts ruled, and the USSC let stand, that freedom of speech did not apply since terms of use provisions were in place, therefor it could not be considered a true public space, in addition, since internet access is not the only method of reaching potential clients. This was a summary dismissal.Social media today is the equivalent to that sidewalk.
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though thesidewalk was part of a privately owned company town.
I'm assuming you are referring to WordPress. If you are here is an excerpt from their terms of service:A couple of important points to clarify here.
1. Terms of use are NOT in place which outline the right to eliminate content from a political ideology, so that doesn't apply here.
Cyber Promotions argued that access to millions of people make the Internet a critical pathway of communicative and that the defendant had exclusive control over this channel of information and ideas from the Internet to its clients The plaintiff's argument was that it is the Internet itself which is a "critical pathway of communication" while simultaneously arguing that it is the channel from the Internet to to clients which is the critical pathway. The court rejected this argument and summarily dismissed this case. The court ruled that while the Internet may be a critical pathway of communication. The defendant never sought to control the exchange of ideas and communications over the Internet itself. The defendant controlled its own channel leading to the Internet in order protect its own private property, reputation and subscribers which is their right to do, since the Supreme Court has CONSISTENTLY ruled that the guarantees of free speech ... guard only against encroachment by the government and not shield against merely private conduct.2. For the AOL case it isn't that the internet wasn't the only way, it is that AOL is not the only way.
I hope what you are learning from this is that reality is what it is. Our laws protect privately owned companies from being compelled into speech they do not agree with... that is a fact. The laws will not change because these companies have bought and paid for our politicians. The only solution for this is for the government to take control of the internet. Government control of any media is bad.I was referring more to Twitter and such since they are true monopolies in that sense.
Even so, it does not stop the fact that these are corporations acting as super PACS unlawfully and thus should be treated and regulated as such.
When a corporation denies service based upon a political ideology, then in essence they are making donations to other ideologies. This is by definition a super PAC.
You are asking for increased government... you are asking that government force privately owned companies to allow people they disagree with to freely express opinions on platforms they own. The argument was made in courts that social media and on-line content service providers dominate the internet to such an extent that they are a defacto public space... ALL these arguements have been rejected in summary decisions and NONE have risen above the district court level, ALL have NOT been reviewed in circuit courts, much less Federal Courts, therefor no where near a judicial review by the USSC.I had hoped you would learn that a "privately" owned corporation engaging in activities reserved specifically for a single type of organization is illegal, and thus they have EARNED the regulation......and are not truly corporations.
Unfortunately all you seem able to do is ignore that fact and do the NPC chant of "Government is bad", when nobody is asking for "increased government".
You have a point to some degree but then there is the realistic implementation of your points and then there is the idealistic implementation. In the idealistic implementation, you say they don't have to give you a platform. However, there is then the realistic implementation, which says they own the social media space at this point and if you want to reach literally billions of people, you need to have their consent to use their tool. It's not a matter of whether or not you can profit from your speech, it's being allowed to say it. Being censored off of their platform severely limits your ability to make your speech known. It would be like being banned from using the Gutenberg press at the time. Yes, you can publish your materials but your ability to do so is severely hampered by not having access to the press and having to do it by hand. Either the government supports and accepts the citizen's rights to free speech or they don't. Allowing companies that have the market cornered on digital speech to make arbitrary calls, from moment to moment, about what is acceptable speech is infringing on those rights.You are changing the subject. If the problem is that large businesses have formed monopolies I agree.. and the answer is to break them up.
Again... you are changing the subject. The problem is does government have the right to COMPEL speech. Not compete in a market of ideas. People have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to be profitable in their speech and they certainly do not have the right to require people listen or read them.
This is a completely different subject... This isn't about free speech, it's about companies securing a monopoly. Microsoft should be broken up, as should Amazon, Google.... and a number of organizations, especially National Banks.
They control markets because many of our politicians are bought and paid for. We could and should break them up.
Okay... now we are back to it social media providers are content producers or not. They are not, and they have never claimed to be. They are publishers and since the do not make money directly with published content, then they can not be held liable for what shows up on their platform... We could change the law making them liable, but that would only mean more content would be screened out because then they would be fiscally responsible for what appears on their platform.
Yes, but to be more correct they reserve the right to take control and ownership over your content unless you post that you have copyrights to what you put out. If you do not copyright your content, anyone can take it... all FB says is that none of their users can take ownership of content without their approval. If you post a song on FB and it isn't protected, and another user takes it and starts making money from it, Facebook can sue them because not only do you have to agree that un-copyrighted material you post belongs to them, but if you are a viewer then you also yield ownership rights to FB.
You have the right to free speech. Companies have the right to deny you service provided you are not violating any other laws. For example, a restaurant can enforce a dress code: they can not deny service to minorities. If Congress changes the laws so that it is illegal to deny terms of service based on anything... well fine... let's debate this and see if it has broad support. The US Constitution gives you the right to free speech... the Constitution does not guarantee the right to wide distribution of speech.
The US Constitution does not guarantee that you will be successful in business only that you are free to pursue happiness. When you are in business there are always environmental changes that you have no control over that will 'ruin' you. If, for example, you have a car wash place... then the city closes your street for three months for road repairs, you are screwed. I've seen things like this happen all the time... it is the nature of business.
It might be wrong, but it is their right to do this. If their advertisers are telling them that they do not want their products marketed side by side with content that their customers do not approve of... well.... then it is a business decision. Companies have the right to protect their brand... if in the process of protecting 'their brand' they end up losing content and viewers... well then they will suffer the consequences of their actions.
This is a different topic and really this is an old debate that actually goes back to the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th century where people were worried that the printing press would have an undo influence on the masses, where a publisher of a printing press who be able to exercise undo influence on the masses. Then radio... then TV... now the internet. But people always find a way to get their points across. When conservatives felt their voices were not heard on TV... they went to AM Radio, eventually an entire TV cable station was dedicated only to conservative content (FOX)... if there is a demand for content, people will find a way to get it... unless the government mucks things up and tries to control the market of ideas.
You are mixing Constitutional protections with with ideas that are not an enumerated right. It is illegal to discriminate on race, religion, and the courts have ruled discrimination against sexual orientation, in certain instances can also be illegal. Now if the government steps in and compels equal access for political and social opinions, well okay... change the law. But if we do that you would be opening up a whole can of worms that I'm not sure many people would like. Anytime the government steps in and tries to control anything it gets fvcked up. Let the free market work.
SJWs and political correctness have been around for centuries. This is not a new phenomenon. People will always use media in an attempt to shape a narrative or promote a political position... and every time there is a new 'technology' be it the printing press... radio... TV.... now the internet, people have always been fearful of the results. New media ALWAYS brings about change... it is the natural order of things. The only time this is a problem is when government attempts to control this, dictating content. If we allow Government to order private companies and individuals what the MUST allow... then where does it end?
This is where you are wrong. Even if you want to set aside the notion that they are the de facto digital space for free speech, they themselves claim that they are merely a platform in court, a humble purveyor of digital content, agnostic of a judgement on that content. They have used that defense in a number of court cases and have been successful in using that defense.You are asking for increased government... you are asking that government force privately owned companies to allow people they disagree with to freely express opinions on platforms they own. The argument was made in courts that social media and on-line content service providers dominate the internet to such an extent that they are a defacto public space... ALL these arguements have been rejected in summary decisions and NONE have risen above the district court level, ALL have NOT been reviewed in circuit courts, much less Federal Courts, therefor no where near a judicial review by the USSC.
I am not ignoring FACTS... I am accepting reality. These platforms that are regulating what people can post on their websites is NOT illegal. What you are arguing is that is SHOULD be illegal... Fine... try and get the laws changed... good luck with hitting your head against a brick wall.
A conservative USSC has ruled that organizations and companies are entitled to individual free speech rights (See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and that 'right' extends to political contributions. Conservatives that have blurred the lines between what can be legally done with Super PACs.
+1 on this, great last couple of sentences. This sums up the entire issue, no more needs to be said. Now it remains to be seen what the logical people left in this society will do to ensure that this type of logic stays at the forefront of our decision making situations.How I look at it is a condition of realities. A person can have a different reality than mine and I can just acknowledge it's different and then just ignore it.
So what is the nature of a government that it has to squelch other realities just because they exist? What motives are they withholding? We can talk about diversity but in fact it cannot be allowed to exist according to the governments. This make me think of Thomas Jefferson and his writings on government.
Jefferson was right all along. A powerful government can't and won't let thoughts other than their own exist. A government's "thought's" are created by who gets voted in. It is not true cultural evolution as masses can be swayed and have forgotten that they are individuals with their own reality.
Would censorship need to exist if those doing it were free thinking and on the up & up? No. Censorship is needed when the prevailing message is an aberration to the natural inclinations of human beings.
Yes.... you need to make it simple for me, because I obviously do not know what I'm talking about. Please explain how a social media platform is a Super PAC?Let me make it exceedingly simple for you.
This is a corporation engaging in activity reserved for Super PACs. That is ILLEGAL.
I am sorry... you are wrong. They claim they are a platform... they have never claimed that they are 'agnostic of judgement'. In fact they reserve the right to regulate content IAW their terms of use. It does not have to be either or...This is where you are wrong. Even if you want to set aside the notion that they are the de facto digital space for free speech, they themselves claim that they are merely a platform in court, a humble purveyor of digital content, agnostic of a judgement on that content. They have used that defense in a number of court cases and have been successful in using that defense.
Sorry, wrong but don't take it from me:I am sorry... you are wrong. They claim they are a platform... they have never claimed that they are 'agnostic of judgement'. In fact they reserve the right to regulate content IAW their terms of use. It does not have to be either or...
You can say that you are not responsible for what people post, and at the same time say what people can or can not post.... it's not either or. They are not responsible for anything posted on their website that does not violate their terms of use.
You as a property owner can say it's okay for people to put up campaign signs in your yard, but you as a property owner can decide for yourself what you will allow to stay, as long as you make it clear up front what you WILL NOT allow.... and if you tell people UP FRONT, that you reserve the right to take down whatever you want for any reason... it is YOUR RIGHT to do this.
I am not following you at all... I do not see how consideration for goods or services received in a private commercial exchange could ever legally be argued as a contribution. But hey... if someone brings a lawsuit then the courts can decide, maybe you could sue and see where it goes.When a corporation chooses to provide a service to only specific parties then they are in effect making donations to those campaigns (which is illegal) No different than if it was a monetary donation.
The Packingham case has nothing to do with this content. It is that the law limited access this is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Anyone should be free to do anything they want on social media provided they do not violate the terms of service. This was not a lawsuit against Facebook, it was a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina.... As I stated before, free speech rights can not be limited by government, the State violated the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiff.Today, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Packingham was right. “Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” reads Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion. “Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”
Doesn't hold weight, they reference the First Amendment in their decision and being able to use social media. And again, you neglected to mention that they claim in public to be a platform in public and in court they hide behind publishing laws. You can't have it both ways. I included references to other cases as well, not just that particular case.The Packingham case has nothing to do with this content. It is that the law limited access this is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Anyone should be free to do anything they want on social media provided they do not violate the terms of service. This was not a lawsuit against Facebook, it was a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina.... As I stated before, free speech rights can not be limited by government, the State violated the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiff.
Ah... okay now I see where you are going with this. Thank you.Donating money is a contribution.
Donating services is also a contribution.
Twitter, facebook, and other free social media are in effect donating services.
The question to the court was that law is permissible under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a question of ACCESS not content. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to SPEECH, and ACCESS to free speech. The court was very clear that they were NOT making a judgment on content, only if an individual has the right to access, and if the State has the right to limit access based on a past conviction, of if this was a violation of the equal protection clause. States do have the right to limit constitutional rights of convicted felons... many State do not allow convicted felons to vote, or own handguns. These apparent violations of constitutional rights PASS judicial review because the courts, in the past, did not see these limits as violations of the 14th amendment.Doesn't hold weight, they reference the First Amendment in their decision and being able to use social media.
I did not mention it because it is not relevant. No one is denying that people should have ACCESS to information available on a public social media platform. The plaintiff in this case was not suing to be allowed to post whatever he wanted, he sued because he was denied access. This is a 1st amendment question but not on speech, but on access.And again, you neglected to mention that they claim in public to be a platform in public and in court they hide behind publishing laws. You can't have it both ways. I included references to other cases as well, not just that particular case.
I do not think I am arguing semantics and I intentionally have not challenged the notion of that social media companies do not have a 'stranglehold', I prefer the legal term 'monopoly' (but I suppose that is semantics as well, sorry). Maybe they do? But so far the courts have not ruled in that way, and if it is determined they do indeed have a monopoly to solution is to break them up to open competition for other platforms.Arguing a point on semantics is not arguing a point. They have a defacto stranglehold on the digital public platform, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Well in truth I am not arguing that point I take it as a fact in evidence. They are a private company and they can do what ever they want provided they are not violating laws. They can not LEGALLY discriminate against classes of people identified in Civil Rights Law... political opinion is not a protected class. If you want to make the argument they should be... well then take it to court... let the judges decide.If you're going to argue they are a private company and can do what they want, then other private companies can discriminate as they see fit.
Your freedom of association is not dictated by a social media platform. You are free to believe and say whatever you like in a PUBLIC forum. You are arguing that social media is a defacto public forum.... again.... take it to court and let the courts decide. So far they have been reluctant to rule on this, or better yet let congress start the process of amending the Constitution to clearly define the cyberspace as a public forum. Then it will not be up to the courts. I really don't think Facebook or any other social media platform would seriously object to this, because then they would be relieved of any responsibility. If some SJW group starts hamming them with boycott threats, they can just turn to the and say "Sorry, it's the law... call you congressional representative."Either there is freedom of association or there isn't, you can't pick and choose.
Well... I have never argued that they are 'publishers' in fact neither have they. They claim they are 'newspaper boys' delivering a 'paper' or a 'print shop' printing what is delivered to them. They don't publish anything, they allow a platform that is it.If you're going to argue they are a platform and not subject to publishing responsibilities or vice versa, then they can't use those arguments in court that go to the opposite of what they claim in public.
Well now on this we agree.If all voices cannot be heard when a corporation of global status has a stranglehold on a market where public opinions are shared and conversations are encouraged, they have a monopoly and should be broken up.
Most of your post is simply splitting hairs. Thank you, it's on first amendment, whether it is speech or access matters not, it is still a first amendment issue.The question to the court was that law is permissible under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a question of ACCESS not content. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to SPEECH, and ACCESS to free speech. The court was very clear that they were NOT making a judgment on content, only if an individual has the right to access, and if the State has the right to limit access based on a past conviction, of if this was a violation of the equal protection clause. States do have the right to limit constitutional rights of convicted felons... many State do not allow convicted felons to vote, or own handguns. These apparent violations of constitutional rights PASS judicial review because the courts, in the past, did not see these limits as violations of the 14th amendment.
I did not mention it because it is not relevant. No one is denying that people should have ACCESS to information available on a public social media platform. The plaintiff in this case was not suing to be allowed to post whatever he wanted, he sued because he was denied access. This is a 1st amendment question but not on speech, but on access.
I do not think I am arguing semantics and I intentionally have not challenged the notion of that social media companies do not have a 'stranglehold', I prefer the legal term 'monopoly' (but I suppose that is semantics as well, sorry). Maybe they do? But so far the courts have not ruled in that way, and if it is determined they do indeed have a monopoly to solution is to break them up to open competition for other platforms.
Well in truth I am not arguing that point I take it as a fact in evidence. They are a private company and they can do what ever they want provided they are not violating laws. They can not LEGALLY discriminate against classes of people identified in Civil Rights Law... political opinion is not a protected class. If you want to make the argument they should be... well then take it to court... let the judges decide.
Your freedom of association is not dictated by a social media platform. You are free to believe and say whatever you like in a PUBLIC forum. You are arguing that social media is a defacto public forum.... again.... take it to court and let the courts decide. So far they have been reluctant to rule on this, or better yet let congress start the process of amending the Constitution to clearly define the cyberspace as a public forum. Then it will not be up to the courts. I really don't think Facebook or any other social media platform would seriously object to this, because then they would be relieved of any responsibility. If some SJW group starts hamming them with boycott threats, they can just turn to the and say "Sorry, it's the law... call you congressional representative."
Well... I have never argued that they are 'publishers' in fact neither have they. They claim they are 'newspaper boys' delivering a 'paper' or a 'print shop' printing what is delivered to them. They don't publish anything, they allow a platform that is it.
Well now on this we agree.
And the USSC has already ruled that corporations and PACS are entitled to constitutional rights. Now I personally disagree with this decision but it is what it is. Like it or not, this is what the courts have given us. Now if we Americans do not like this, then the solution is to amend the Constitution.This is my point though.....
They are a company, acting as a Super PAC in that they are essentially donating infinite amounts to parties and actually even campaigns.
This matters because super PACS do not have the same rights as individuals.