4 ms·

You are missing other laws that already enforce standards on certain platforms, that are similar to the concept of free speech. Those laws are called common ca

by stale2002 6y ago

You are missing other laws that already enforce standards on certain platforms, that are similar to the concept of free speech. Those laws are called common carrier laws. It is already illegal for many communication platforms, that a subject to certain classifications, to discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech that they distribute. Common carrier laws are not controversial. Few people would argue that we should get rid of common carrier laws.

localhost 6y ago
IANAL but common carrier laws are there to protect the carrier. e.g., people can use a telephone to plan a crime, but you cannot hold the phone company responsible for that crime. So the phone company does not discriminate otherwise they lose common carrier protections. Regardless, I was responding to the 1st amendment claim by the GP.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > but you cannot hold the phone company responsible for that crime Sure. But now imagine if we applied the same provisions to twitter or facebook. We could say that if they don't follow common carrier status, then we can hold them responsible for any crime done on their platform. This is would almost effectively the same thing as forcing them to follow common carrier laws. And it would have the same effect as requiring them to follow the 1st amendment, but doing it in a round about way. It is not exactly the same as using the 1st amendment. But it is close enough. Because, TBH, we already use these laws for commication platforms, such as phone companies.
three_seagrass 6y ago
Common carrier laws apply to the unbiased transportation of information over networks, they do not guarantee hosting of information by private parties or access to their audience. Example: - CC laws guarantee that if you are able to host your speech on your own server that ISPs have to route information requests to it. - CC laws do not guarantee you can force Reddit to host your speech on their own private servers or force Reddit to give you broadcast access to their audience.
- stale2002 6y ago
  The point being that phone systems really aren't that different than Twitter or Facebook. I am arguing that common carrier laws already exist, and are not controversial. And that it really isn't much of a stretch to change and expand our existing, uncontroversial, common carrier laws, so as to apply to other things that really aren't much different than our phone system. Even if those laws have yet to be slightly updated to apply to the modern era yet.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Phones systems are information transportation systems that handle information requests. Phones systems are are not platforms to host speech - i.e. CC laws can't force me to play your phone recording in my private home when someone calls me. You talk about how established Common Carrier laws are, but that's precisely what they're established for - transportation. Hence the word carrier. CC laws were originally for unbiased trucking and rail transportation, and do not guarantee that you can force a private warehouse to store your goods.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > You talk about how established Common Carrier laws are I am saying that these laws are uncontroversial, and it would only require a slight expansion and change to them, to order for them to cover very similar things, that aren't that much different than what CC laws currently cover. Yes, I understand that CC laws don't technically apply to what I am talking about. I am instead saying that it would only be a slight change, to make them apply, and therefore not as big of a deal as people are making it seem. > but that's precisely what they're established for - transportation I don't see how telephone companies transporting your phone calls is much different than twitter transporting your tweets. Yes, it is not exactly the same. It is slightly different. But only slightly. > CC laws can't force me to play your phone recording > do not guarantee that you can force a private warehouse to store your goods. The private warehouse, or end phone user, in the twitter example, would be the end user. Twitter, is arguably, transporting your messages. And then the end user is not forced to keep it. So even if CC laws were changed to apply to twitter, the end user would not be forced to keep their tweet. They could delete it, or not follow you, or whatever. Just like how if I make a phone call to someone, they still receive the phone call, but you don't have to pick of the phone. The same argument could be applied to tweets. > Phones systems are are not platforms to host speech They have to transport speech. In the same way that twitter transports speech.
DarthDobber 6y ago
Well, they didn't discriminate. They simply used their right to free speech on their platform to add additional information. So are you arguing that the president has a greater right to free speech than Twitter?
- stale2002 6y ago
  > They simply used their right This isn't how common carrier laws work. The way that common carriers laws work, is that companies that are subject to them do not have the right to pick and choose who they sell to, if they want the protections that theses laws provide. Twitter isn't currently subject to these rules. But these laws already exist, and are uncontroversial, and could be extended to other platforms. For example, if Twitter lost it's current content immunity, by being deemed a publisher, then it would be subject to significant liability, and may have to change up how it runs itself

localhost 6y ago

IANAL but common carrier laws are there to protect the carrier. e.g., people can use a telephone to plan a crime, but you cannot hold the phone company responsible for that crime. So the phone company does not discriminate otherwise they lose common carrier protections. Regardless, I was responding to the 1st amendment claim by the GP.

stale2002 6y ago
> but you cannot hold the phone company responsible for that crime Sure. But now imagine if we applied the same provisions to twitter or facebook. We could say that if they don't follow common carrier status, then we can hold them responsible for any crime done on their platform. This is would almost effectively the same thing as forcing them to follow common carrier laws. And it would have the same effect as requiring them to follow the 1st amendment, but doing it in a round about way. It is not exactly the same as using the 1st amendment. But it is close enough. Because, TBH, we already use these laws for commication platforms, such as phone companies.

three_seagrass 6y ago

Common carrier laws apply to the unbiased transportation of information over networks, they do not guarantee hosting of information by private parties or access to their audience. Example: - CC laws guarantee that if you are able to host your speech on your own server that ISPs have to route information requests to it. - CC laws do not guarantee you can force Reddit to host your speech on their own private servers or force Reddit to give you broadcast access to their audience.

stale2002 6y ago
The point being that phone systems really aren't that different than Twitter or Facebook. I am arguing that common carrier laws already exist, and are not controversial. And that it really isn't much of a stretch to change and expand our existing, uncontroversial, common carrier laws, so as to apply to other things that really aren't much different than our phone system. Even if those laws have yet to be slightly updated to apply to the modern era yet.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  Phones systems are information transportation systems that handle information requests. Phones systems are are not platforms to host speech - i.e. CC laws can't force me to play your phone recording in my private home when someone calls me. You talk about how established Common Carrier laws are, but that's precisely what they're established for - transportation. Hence the word carrier. CC laws were originally for unbiased trucking and rail transportation, and do not guarantee that you can force a private warehouse to store your goods.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > You talk about how established Common Carrier laws are I am saying that these laws are uncontroversial, and it would only require a slight expansion and change to them, to order for them to cover very similar things, that aren't that much different than what CC laws currently cover. Yes, I understand that CC laws don't technically apply to what I am talking about. I am instead saying that it would only be a slight change, to make them apply, and therefore not as big of a deal as people are making it seem. > but that's precisely what they're established for - transportation I don't see how telephone companies transporting your phone calls is much different than twitter transporting your tweets. Yes, it is not exactly the same. It is slightly different. But only slightly. > CC laws can't force me to play your phone recording > do not guarantee that you can force a private warehouse to store your goods. The private warehouse, or end phone user, in the twitter example, would be the end user. Twitter, is arguably, transporting your messages. And then the end user is not forced to keep it. So even if CC laws were changed to apply to twitter, the end user would not be forced to keep their tweet. They could delete it, or not follow you, or whatever. Just like how if I make a phone call to someone, they still receive the phone call, but you don't have to pick of the phone. The same argument could be applied to tweets. > Phones systems are are not platforms to host speech They have to transport speech. In the same way that twitter transports speech.

DarthDobber 6y ago

Well, they didn't discriminate. They simply used their right to free speech on their platform to add additional information. So are you arguing that the president has a greater right to free speech than Twitter?

stale2002 6y ago
> They simply used their right This isn't how common carrier laws work. The way that common carriers laws work, is that companies that are subject to them do not have the right to pick and choose who they sell to, if they want the protections that theses laws provide. Twitter isn't currently subject to these rules. But these laws already exist, and are uncontroversial, and could be extended to other platforms. For example, if Twitter lost it's current content immunity, by being deemed a publisher, then it would be subject to significant liability, and may have to change up how it runs itself