3 ms·

Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet

Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.

joshuamorton 7y ago
No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear and obvious violation of their freedom of speech.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  Right but my point was just that the Internet clearly falls under the 1st amendment expression and is therefore protected from government influence in similar ways.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I'd agree with what you just said, but your original post can be construed as (and many claim) that if Facebook is a monopoly, the first amendment protects your ability to post on Facebook, since it's a public square. But that doesn't follow.
- Floegipoky 7y ago
  Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    I'm well aware. Of what the press is, as defined by the Constitution. And my point is that such an argument is wrong, and furthermore dangerous. If you allow the government to control what Facebook can or cannot publish, well you're now saying the government can control the press. If it's a monopoly, deal with the monopoly. Being a monopoly doesn't revoke constitutional rights.
notatoad 7y ago
The right to not publish anything is just as important a part of the freedom of the press as the right to publish something. If the leader of the Proud Boys writes a white supremacist manifesto and the Washington Post declines to publish it, that's the freedom of the press in action. If the government were to step in and say "no, you have to publish this", that would be a massive violation of the freedom of the press. When we apply the exact same scenario to reddit or youtube, everybody is up in arms about how they have a duty to free speech to publish every piece of racist garbage that gets posted.

Well the first amendment also includes freedom of the press, which inherently involves the amplification of speech to reach the masses. So I think the Internet is easily covered.

joshuamorton 7y ago

No, it prevents the government from censoring the press. It does not require that any given press publish you. In other words, if you're going to consider that "Facebook" is like "The Washington Post", you have no right to be published in either. And the government forcing either to publish you is an attack on the freedom of speech of the publisher. Because forcing them to say something they don't want to is a clear and obvious violation of their freedom of speech.

whateveracct 7y ago
Right but my point was just that the Internet clearly falls under the 1st amendment expression and is therefore protected from government influence in similar ways.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  I'd agree with what you just said, but your original post can be construed as (and many claim) that if Facebook is a monopoly, the first amendment protects your ability to post on Facebook, since it's a public square. But that doesn't follow.
Floegipoky 7y ago
Freedom of the press has nothing to do with publishers or institutions; "the press" is not a separate entity from "The People". All citizens may exercise freedom of the press whether they're a credentialed journalist or a rando with a camera phone. And I think the argument being made is that social media like Facebook is more akin to a public forum than a curated publication like The Washington Post.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  I'm well aware. Of what the press is, as defined by the Constitution. And my point is that such an argument is wrong, and furthermore dangerous. If you allow the government to control what Facebook can or cannot publish, well you're now saying the government can control the press. If it's a monopoly, deal with the monopoly. Being a monopoly doesn't revoke constitutional rights.

notatoad 7y ago

The right to not publish anything is just as important a part of the freedom of the press as the right to publish something. If the leader of the Proud Boys writes a white supremacist manifesto and the Washington Post declines to publish it, that's the freedom of the press in action. If the government were to step in and say "no, you have to publish this", that would be a massive violation of the freedom of the press. When we apply the exact same scenario to reddit or youtube, everybody is up in arms about how they have a duty to free speech to publish every piece of racist garbage that gets posted.