6 ms·

> The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me that Twi

by jquery 9y ago

> The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it, without any due process or even notification (see: shadowbanning). Nevermind that Twitter regularly pushes its own viewpoints to the top, not only of its own homefeed, but picks-and-chooses which users get to show directly underneath the Trump's tweets. That sort of power, unregulated and non-transparent, is immense. Maybe the algorithm should be transparent. More and more, I feel like content-providers are treating the First Amendment as damage and routing around it [1] [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore

throwawayjava 9y ago
> But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum Then perhaps our elected and appointed officials should not use Twitter when conducting government business. But more importantly, this is a related but different issue from the one discussed in the brief. There are two questions: 1. Should officials have the right to block users for their political speech 2. Should officials be allowed to use platforms that block users for their political speech, or prefer some political speech over other speech. IMO the answer to both questions should be "no". But this is case is really about the first question.
throwaway613834 9y ago
>> The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. > You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me It is clear to me: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." I don't see where it says anything about private corporations.
- jquery 9y ago
  Oh, so you think Net Neutrality was unconstitutional?
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > Oh, so you think Net Neutrality was unconstitutional? I can't even understand your logic to try to make sense of this and respond to you. Are you saying you think if the first amendment doesn't imply X then X is unconstitutional?
    - jquery 9y ago
      My point is that the First Amendment is far more complicated than your comment. The government regularly forces private corporations to carry speech they disagree with in the name of the First Amendment. AT&T can't censor my calls if they don't like the content, so clearly corporations do intersect with the first amendment. EDIT: Can't reply to your comment, so here's one such article, from the EFF no less, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
      - throwaway613834 9y ago
        I'm pretty darn sure net neutrality regulation was there to promote competition, protect consumers, etc. (see: commerce clause, among others) rather than to protect people's first-amendment rights. Notwithstanding how you may have personally viewed it, you're gonna need some serious citations if you're going to seriously argue the regulation was there due to 1st-amendment free speech concerns. Here's a link from my end to get you started. https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/03/10/the-first-amendment-red-herring-in-the-net-neutrality-debate/#7d153486326a https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/03/10/the-... EDIT in response to your edit: you dodged this pretty cleverly. Senators say a lot of wrong and even contradictory things (I hope I don't need to waste time finding you videos), and like any interest group, EFF stretches arguments beyond their applicability to support their agenda. (Not saying they have bad agendas! But having a desirable conclusion doesn't imply good arguments are being provided for it.) There are pretty clear lines between: [1] "some senators (and EFF) feel a lack of net neutrality would violate the first amendment" (which wasn't your argument, and if it was, is a pretty weak claim), [2] "net neutrality was there to protect first amendment rights" (which was your argument, and the one I was asking you to support, and a pretty easy one to prove if correct -- all you need is to quote the rationales for the net neutrality regulation we had), and [3] "lack of net neutrality actually violates the first amendment" (which you've been arguing towards, but which would require case law as proof, not senators' feelings)
- nitrogen 9y ago
  Congress makes the laws that allow corporations to operate nationally. It can be argued that Congress has abridged the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly by creating the environment in which private entities own everything that resembles a modern public venue.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > Congress makes the laws that allow corporations to operate nationally. It can be argued that Congress has abridged the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly by creating the environment in which private entities own everything that resembles a modern public venue. Only if by "it can be argued" you're referring to being physically capable of arguing. Otherwise, no. The first amendment was never about guaranteeing you a platform or about otherwise ensuring anyone else hears you. It was about the government not arresting you for what comes out of your mouth.
    - nitrogen 9y ago
      All that matters is what the country needs now, not what some reasonably insightful but far from clairvoyant people thought a couple hundred years ago. Also you put words into my mouth. I never said anything about guarantees or platforms. But consider this: if the government's intention was always to turn over every useful platform to wealthy private owners, why bother with a bill of rights or first amendment at all?
icebraining 9y ago
it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it IANAL, but the relevant case law seems clear to me - the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property, even when that property is used like a public place, e.g. a mall. What does seem to apply is State law - that is, seems like a US State can force a mall owner to allow people to express certain speech, without the State itself violating the First Amendment (as per [1]). Which raises the question whether the State(s) where Twitter has a legal presence could restrict its control. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
- jquery 9y ago
  I'm not sure we have decent case law for the situation we're in now... the speech of Americans is largely controlled by a few entities that have the power to silence your speech almost completely, at least in the ways that speech is used today.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I don't think you understand how case law works. Unless you're making an argument for full legal instrumentalism(?)
    - jquery 9y ago
      I just don't think a mall and Twitter/Facebook are particularly comparable. They have some things in common, but they differ in large, important ways. If every mall in the US was actually the very same mall, and getting banned from one got you banned from all malls, and malls could shadowban you, and the President typically communicated via malls, and malls were the primary way in which society spoke to each other... and on and on. Then again IANAL, so I definitely don't understand how case law works. Just using common sense here. All I see in common between malls and Twitter/FB is they are both private property and speech is involved. There's a chasm beyond that.
      - 9y ago
H99189 9y ago
Free speech has become a political tool. Content providers as you indicated like Twitter, and i'll add Reddit, push their political agendas very heavily. It was very interesting to see Reddit (or many subreddits anyway) campaigning against recent NN plans on grounds of there being an impact to their rights to free speech. The rooster is killing the chick's and complaining to the Hen about a wolf outside.
- jquery 9y ago
  During the hysteria, if you pointed this out on Reddit, your comment would be censored.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

by jquery 9y ago

throwawayjava 9y ago

> But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum Then perhaps our elected and appointed officials should not use Twitter when conducting government business. But more importantly, this is a related but different issue from the one discussed in the brief. There are two questions: 1. Should officials have the right to block users for their political speech 2. Should officials be allowed to use platforms that block users for their political speech, or prefer some political speech over other speech. IMO the answer to both questions should be "no". But this is case is really about the first question.

throwaway613834 9y ago

>> The question isn’t whether Twitter in general is subject to the first amendment—it isn’t. > You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me It is clear to me: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." I don't see where it says anything about private corporations.

jquery 9y ago
Oh, so you think Net Neutrality was unconstitutional?
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Oh, so you think Net Neutrality was unconstitutional? I can't even understand your logic to try to make sense of this and respond to you. Are you saying you think if the first amendment doesn't imply X then X is unconstitutional?
  - jquery 9y ago
    My point is that the First Amendment is far more complicated than your comment. The government regularly forces private corporations to carry speech they disagree with in the name of the First Amendment. AT&T can't censor my calls if they don't like the content, so clearly corporations do intersect with the first amendment. EDIT: Can't reply to your comment, so here's one such article, from the EFF no less, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      I'm pretty darn sure net neutrality regulation was there to promote competition, protect consumers, etc. (see: commerce clause, among others) rather than to protect people's first-amendment rights. Notwithstanding how you may have personally viewed it, you're gonna need some serious citations if you're going to seriously argue the regulation was there due to 1st-amendment free speech concerns. Here's a link from my end to get you started. https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/03/10/the-first-amendment-red-herring-in-the-net-neutrality-debate/#7d153486326a https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/03/10/the-... EDIT in response to your edit: you dodged this pretty cleverly. Senators say a lot of wrong and even contradictory things (I hope I don't need to waste time finding you videos), and like any interest group, EFF stretches arguments beyond their applicability to support their agenda. (Not saying they have bad agendas! But having a desirable conclusion doesn't imply good arguments are being provided for it.) There are pretty clear lines between: [1] "some senators (and EFF) feel a lack of net neutrality would violate the first amendment" (which wasn't your argument, and if it was, is a pretty weak claim), [2] "net neutrality was there to protect first amendment rights" (which was your argument, and the one I was asking you to support, and a pretty easy one to prove if correct -- all you need is to quote the rationales for the net neutrality regulation we had), and [3] "lack of net neutrality actually violates the first amendment" (which you've been arguing towards, but which would require case law as proof, not senators' feelings)
nitrogen 9y ago
Congress makes the laws that allow corporations to operate nationally. It can be argued that Congress has abridged the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly by creating the environment in which private entities own everything that resembles a modern public venue.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Congress makes the laws that allow corporations to operate nationally. It can be argued that Congress has abridged the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly by creating the environment in which private entities own everything that resembles a modern public venue. Only if by "it can be argued" you're referring to being physically capable of arguing. Otherwise, no. The first amendment was never about guaranteeing you a platform or about otherwise ensuring anyone else hears you. It was about the government not arresting you for what comes out of your mouth.
  - nitrogen 9y ago
    All that matters is what the country needs now, not what some reasonably insightful but far from clairvoyant people thought a couple hundred years ago. Also you put words into my mouth. I never said anything about guarantees or platforms. But consider this: if the government's intention was always to turn over every useful platform to wealthy private owners, why bother with a bill of rights or first amendment at all?

icebraining 9y ago

it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it IANAL, but the relevant case law seems clear to me - the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property, even when that property is used like a public place, e.g. a mall. What does seem to apply is State law - that is, seems like a US State can force a mall owner to allow people to express certain speech, without the State itself violating the First Amendment (as per [1]). Which raises the question whether the State(s) where Twitter has a legal presence could restrict its control. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

jquery 9y ago
I'm not sure we have decent case law for the situation we're in now... the speech of Americans is largely controlled by a few entities that have the power to silence your speech almost completely, at least in the ways that speech is used today.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I don't think you understand how case law works. Unless you're making an argument for full legal instrumentalism(?)
  - jquery 9y ago
    I just don't think a mall and Twitter/Facebook are particularly comparable. They have some things in common, but they differ in large, important ways. If every mall in the US was actually the very same mall, and getting banned from one got you banned from all malls, and malls could shadowban you, and the President typically communicated via malls, and malls were the primary way in which society spoke to each other... and on and on. Then again IANAL, so I definitely don't understand how case law works. Just using common sense here. All I see in common between malls and Twitter/FB is they are both private property and speech is involved. There's a chasm beyond that.
    - 9y ago

H99189 9y ago

Free speech has become a political tool. Content providers as you indicated like Twitter, and i'll add Reddit, push their political agendas very heavily. It was very interesting to see Reddit (or many subreddits anyway) campaigning against recent NN plans on grounds of there being an impact to their rights to free speech. The rooster is killing the chick's and complaining to the Hen about a wolf outside.

jquery 9y ago
During the hysteria, if you pointed this out on Reddit, your comment would be censored.¯\_(ツ)_/¯