3 ms·
Commented above as well: Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amen
by jdoliner 8y ago
Commented above as well:
Case law would disagree. Here's a case where the Supreme court ruled that Facebook banning someone was a violation of their first amendment rights. [0] Salient quote: "Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights"
Edit: as pointed out, this ruling doesn't actually disagree with what the previous comment said. It does seem similar enough to me to be relevant though so leaving it up.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
- buyx 8y agoThat’s a ruling about a state law, not a Facebook policy.
- danhon 8y agoSee above comments. The case doesn’t say what you think it says - it’s government that isn’t allowed to foreclose access, so the underlying cause here is Carolina’s violating legislation.
- appliestogvmt 8y agoYou posted a link to a case involving a law in North Carolina. Facebook was not party to the case. Would you please quote (from the link you posted) where it says that Facebook banned said user?
- snerbles 8y agoPackingham v. North Carolina [0] was about the constitutionality of the state banning users from social media - not on social networks issuing their own bans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
- jdoliner 8y agoYup, corrected above.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]