3 ms·

We impose restrictions on corporations in the name of the public interest all the time. It is completely reasonable to require that a company that has a de fact

We impose restrictions on corporations in the name of the public interest all the time. It is completely reasonable to require that a company that has a de facto monopoly on personal video distribution uphold the principle of free speech. It's a virtual town square, and if you don't force its operator to allow free speech, the people as a whole don't get to have free speech.

krapp 7y ago
>We impose restrictions on corporations in the name of the public interest all the time. It is completely reasonable to require that a company that has a de facto monopoly on personal video distribution uphold the principle of free speech. Yes, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations, and so it isn't relevant to any argument about restricting the speech of corporations or private citizens, or about the ability of the public, states or private companies to do so. Also, these companies don't have de facto monopolies on anything. Facebook et al. are not the modern day equivalents of Ma Bell or J.P Morgan. They don't control any scarce resources, and aren't capable of preventing anyone from publishing speech outside of their platforms, nor can they prevent the existence of other competing platforms, nor is it more difficult, time consuming or costly to reach the URL of a Twitter post or Facebook page than that of any other service or even a personal page. Information propagated perfectly well across the web prior to the existence of FAANG, and their existence and relative popularity doesn't render the rest of the web or its capabilities obsolete. Free speech doesn't require them, and their actions don't pose an existential threat to it. Also, what is the "principle of free speech," exactly? Because again... free speech isn't defined by the First Amendment, so if you want to put the force of the government and its monopoly on violence behind taking over private companies, declaring them "public" and forcing them comply with upholding it, please specify exactly what this principle is and what legal doctrine supports it. Bearing in mind that, of course, speech in public spaces is regulated as well, so you're going to have to explain why Facebook should be forced to allow speech that might not be allowed in actual public squares.

krapp 7y ago

>We impose restrictions on corporations in the name of the public interest all the time. It is completely reasonable to require that a company that has a de facto monopoly on personal video distribution uphold the principle of free speech. Yes, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations, and so it isn't relevant to any argument about restricting the speech of corporations or private citizens, or about the ability of the public, states or private companies to do so. Also, these companies don't have de facto monopolies on anything. Facebook et al. are not the modern day equivalents of Ma Bell or J.P Morgan. They don't control any scarce resources, and aren't capable of preventing anyone from publishing speech outside of their platforms, nor can they prevent the existence of other competing platforms, nor is it more difficult, time consuming or costly to reach the URL of a Twitter post or Facebook page than that of any other service or even a personal page. Information propagated perfectly well across the web prior to the existence of FAANG, and their existence and relative popularity doesn't render the rest of the web or its capabilities obsolete. Free speech doesn't require them, and their actions don't pose an existential threat to it. Also, what is the "principle of free speech," exactly? Because again... free speech isn't defined by the First Amendment, so if you want to put the force of the government and its monopoly on violence behind taking over private companies, declaring them "public" and forcing them comply with upholding it, please specify exactly what this principle is and what legal doctrine supports it. Bearing in mind that, of course, speech in public spaces is regulated as well, so you're going to have to explain why Facebook should be forced to allow speech that might not be allowed in actual public squares.