3 ms·
If you make the argument that a private company, by shutting down a user's account, is like government restriction on free speech, then how do you determine the
by dalke 10y ago
If you make the argument that a private company, by shutting down a user's account, is like government restriction on free speech, then how do you determine the balance between the right of free speech and the right of free association?
Remember, freedom of speech is only one part of the First Amendment. Those same writers also included the freedom of association. An organization like Google, Fox News, Amazon, or the Wall Street Journal is not obligated to associate with everyone.
We can change things. We can pass laws which mandate that certain things are public spaces. For example, the rise of the malls means that the migration from public shopping streets to private shopping areas, where mall owners like the Mall of the Americas can shut down protest much more readily than the police could do in a truly public area. We can pass laws which force malls to be public areas. The Supreme Court decided that in Pruneyard v. Robins. But only a handful of states have done so.
We can similarly pass laws which say that any content hosting site must be content neutral. Eg, if you want to use Stack Overflow to post your diatribes against whale hunting, SO cannot shut you down.
That doesn't make sense. Okay, so we only require that of "powerful" sites, which you suggest. Which is defined as .... what? Who gets to decide? Who gets to challenge that? If Yahoo was once powerful but is no longer so, who gets to decide when the transition occurs?
One possibility is to set up a common carrier status, where a company offers its services without discrimination to the general public. This is how the phone system works. But why would a company want to do this?
- DavidWanjiru 10y agoDoes using Google products qualify my relationship with them as an association? In the same way that me buying you a cup of coffee is association? I realize that I'm suggesting calls that are difficult to make, but my wider contention is that the current status quo, legal and valid as it is, is missing something that we are going to have to address at some point.
- dalke 10y agoYes. Though they are different associations. They are subject to federal and state laws which don't affect personal transactions. For example, they are available to the general public so are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, and several other protected classes. California and other states place even more restrictions on their ability to discriminate. On the other hand, you are free to discriminate as you wish. (Though not without risk of criticism; such is free speech.) There's another difference in your example. Google provides services to the general public. You use their services. However, I do not provide a drinking-coffee service. I don't even like the taste of coffee. There is no reason I need to accept your offer to give me a cup of coffee any more than I need to accept a flyer from someone in the street. But if I were a company which provided coffee consumption services, then I would have less ability to turn you down than I do as a private person. My wider contention is that we have plenty of historical examples of public/private space which help us understand what's going on. For example, can a company town prevent someone from coming to town to distribute religious materials? Decided in Marsh v. Alabama. Are AOL email addresses "public", so AOL cannot block spammers? Decided in Cyber Promotions v. America Online.