6 ms·

Edit: I mistook this from being a government action, not a private company action. I totally agree a private company is allowed to restrict things in this way.

Edit: I mistook this from being a government action, not a private company action. I totally agree a private company is allowed to restrict things in this way. >Any advertiser who doesn’t pass will be prohibited from running political or issue ads. How does this interact with the First Amendment? If I'm paying for a local TV company to run an add, wouldn't restricting my ability be in violation? What if I buy the local TV company and choose which ads are ran? Edit: What about non-political or non-issue ads that still have a political component? For example, if I was a billionaire wanting to cause some certain political divides, I could definitely create ads that still cause great controversy. For example, spend some money developing a bullet proof school outfit, and then advertise it heavily. It is a bunch of extra work and expenditure I wouldn't do if I could just run gun control ads, but if those were banned are you going to ban any advertisements related to any merchandise that is related to political issues?

theresistor 9y ago
The First Amendment is about government restriction of speech.
neuromantik8086 9y ago
> How does this interact with the First Amendment? It doesn't interact with the First Amendment at all. Private corporations can make their own rules about what speech they will and will not allow. The First Amendment only deals with the government's ability to censor individuals, not a private entity's policies regarding allowable communications. Most Americans don't seem to understand this.
- vageli 9y ago
  Interestingly, this was not always the case in the United States.[0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
  - sarah180 9y ago
    It's noteworthy that this rule existed for broadcast networks, under the rationale that they were entrusted users of a scarce shared/public resource (slices of the radio spectrum). Cable distribution of television doesn't involve a public resource and was treated differently.
- smsm42 9y ago
  There's however the broader value behind the First Amendment. While FA does only limit the government, the values of free speech and robust democratic debate are not limited to the government. Legal enforcement and government coercion can only go so far, and so can governmental support. If the society wants working democracy, FA - or other free speech protections - is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. This should be also supported in private actions and common values informing them. Otherwise free speech can not survive, even without direct governmental coercion - it would just be eliminated by other means. FA is not the source of those values, it is the consequence of them, and thus limiting the discussion only to FA ignores the wider meaning of it. I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position.
  - neuromantik8086 9y ago
    If Americans were invoking the spirit of the First Amendment rather than appealing to a misunderstanding of its limits, then why not appeal to other precedents? By your logic folks should be invoking William and Mary's Bill of Rights rather than its American successor. > I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position. You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. I've had to point out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private employment numerous times in the past (i.e., this is not my first comment) in situations where the other commenter literally did not understand the Constitution and the basic history surrounding it. The demographic reading Hacker News is not at all indicative of the U.S. population at large and usually consists of college-educated, middle class knowledge workers. [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      FA is by far the most famous embodiment of the concept. > You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. You don't need to known details of government functioning to value free speech. Valuing free speech is one of those natural values most people - at least in American culture - embrace by default, without much need of educating them on the details. > [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment. That very well may be (though OP recognized their error in an edit), but the comment I responded to talked about "most Americans", not just one online commenter.
jimmywanger 9y ago
It does not clash at all, except in cases where the courts decide that you effectively control all expression in a public service. Just like it's not a First Amendment violation for you to refuse me to paint racist slogan on the side of my house, does not mean it's a First Amendment violation for me to refuse to run your ads on your site.
cazum 9y ago
A private advertising medium (Facebook, twitter, the TV station, etc) are not responsible for upholding your first amendment right to free speech. They are a private entity that get to decide what gets published on their platform. The first amendment only frees your speech from state suppression.
- PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
  Yeah, upon rereading it I realize it was speaking from the point of Facebook. I though it had been speaking from the point of a government requirement, as in making a suggestion of what should be required by law. That one was my mistake.
- gaius 9y ago
  They are a private entity that get to decide what gets published on their platform Except when they want to hide behind the legal defence of “common carrier”. Can’t have it both ways.
paulie_a 9y ago
The first amendment is not applicable in any way, shape or form
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sbov 9y ago
People are saying it isn't affected by the first amendment, but it seems pretty gray to me: Facebook is doing this because they need to sell a good story to congress. If they don't have that story, congress seems likely to bring the hammer down on them. Obviously the threat is assumed. But can congress explicitly threaten a company? Is this all congress needs to do to run around the first amendment in the 21st century - threaten internet companies to do it for them?

theresistor 9y ago

The First Amendment is about government restriction of speech.

neuromantik8086 9y ago

> How does this interact with the First Amendment? It doesn't interact with the First Amendment at all. Private corporations can make their own rules about what speech they will and will not allow. The First Amendment only deals with the government's ability to censor individuals, not a private entity's policies regarding allowable communications. Most Americans don't seem to understand this.

vageli 9y ago
Interestingly, this was not always the case in the United States.[0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
- sarah180 9y ago
  It's noteworthy that this rule existed for broadcast networks, under the rationale that they were entrusted users of a scarce shared/public resource (slices of the radio spectrum). Cable distribution of television doesn't involve a public resource and was treated differently.
smsm42 9y ago
There's however the broader value behind the First Amendment. While FA does only limit the government, the values of free speech and robust democratic debate are not limited to the government. Legal enforcement and government coercion can only go so far, and so can governmental support. If the society wants working democracy, FA - or other free speech protections - is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. This should be also supported in private actions and common values informing them. Otherwise free speech can not survive, even without direct governmental coercion - it would just be eliminated by other means. FA is not the source of those values, it is the consequence of them, and thus limiting the discussion only to FA ignores the wider meaning of it. I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position.
- neuromantik8086 9y ago
  If Americans were invoking the spirit of the First Amendment rather than appealing to a misunderstanding of its limits, then why not appeal to other precedents? By your logic folks should be invoking William and Mary's Bill of Rights rather than its American successor. > I think many Americans understand this very well, and thus resorting to narrow legalistic view of the issue misunderstands their position. You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. I've had to point out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private employment numerous times in the past (i.e., this is not my first comment) in situations where the other commenter literally did not understand the Constitution and the basic history surrounding it. The demographic reading Hacker News is not at all indicative of the U.S. population at large and usually consists of college-educated, middle class knowledge workers. [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    FA is by far the most famous embodiment of the concept. > You're being disingenuous here or at the very least you put way too much faith in the average American's knowledge of basic civics / their own government. You don't need to known details of government functioning to value free speech. Valuing free speech is one of those natural values most people - at least in American culture - embrace by default, without much need of educating them on the details. > [edit] Clearly the original parent does understand the First Amendment. That very well may be (though OP recognized their error in an edit), but the comment I responded to talked about "most Americans", not just one online commenter.

jimmywanger 9y ago

It does not clash at all, except in cases where the courts decide that you effectively control all expression in a public service. Just like it's not a First Amendment violation for you to refuse me to paint racist slogan on the side of my house, does not mean it's a First Amendment violation for me to refuse to run your ads on your site.

cazum 9y ago

A private advertising medium (Facebook, twitter, the TV station, etc) are not responsible for upholding your first amendment right to free speech. They are a private entity that get to decide what gets published on their platform. The first amendment only frees your speech from state suppression.

PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
Yeah, upon rereading it I realize it was speaking from the point of Facebook. I though it had been speaking from the point of a government requirement, as in making a suggestion of what should be required by law. That one was my mistake.
gaius 9y ago
They are a private entity that get to decide what gets published on their platform Except when they want to hide behind the legal defence of “common carrier”. Can’t have it both ways.

paulie_a 9y ago

The first amendment is not applicable in any way, shape or form

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sbov 9y ago

People are saying it isn't affected by the first amendment, but it seems pretty gray to me: Facebook is doing this because they need to sell a good story to congress. If they don't have that story, congress seems likely to bring the hammer down on them. Obviously the threat is assumed. But can congress explicitly threaten a company? Is this all congress needs to do to run around the first amendment in the 21st century - threaten internet companies to do it for them?