3 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight 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 agoI'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 agoFreedom 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 agoI'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.