3 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 It i

>> 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?

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?