3 ms·

> The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government It is assumed by the 1st amendment that we have freedom of speech (among many other rights

> The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government It is assumed by the 1st amendment that we have freedom of speech (among many other rights). The amendment does not grant the right, but prevents infringement of it. At the time of the amendment, there was concern that the federal government might infringe on it, so this amendment specifically called that out. Later, it became clear that the states had a history of infringing on these and other rights. We fought the Civil War over this. The result was that now states are also enjoined to not infringe on these rights. Later, it became clear the corporations might infringe on the rights of people, as they, too, were becoming very powerful. This was the anti trust era. It's pretty much settled law that when a corporation attains a certain level of power, as indicated by monopoly status, then they are restricted in their activities. We do not allow the electrical monopoly to cut off power to groups they don't like, or force the signing of terms of partisan terms of service. Later, during the Civil Rights era, segregationists insisted that people didn't have a constitutional right to eat in the restaurant of their choice, use the drinking fountain of their choice, go to the same schools as others, etc. The federal government ended up sending in the national guard. These private businesses don't get to infringe on rights just because they're private. So, the 1st amendment has not only broadened, it has also put the federal government in a sort of supervisory role to interfere when it sees states and business infringing on people's rights. There is nothing special about a social media company that should give them the ability to infringe on our rights.

nightcracker 6y ago
I agree with what you wrote, except that it's the 1st amendment that's relevant. > There is nothing special about a social media company that should give them the ability to infringe on our rights. I personally believe that social media platforms are public spaces (although I don't think it's clear how to precisely define this into law without or minimal loopholes). But I don't think it's inconsistent or hypocritical for a company to not want to lose control over the discourse on its site while simultaneously advocating against government requests for self-reporting of social media accounts due to previously discussed chilling effects.
- tomohawk 6y ago
  I think in this era we will see how or if our rights will be protected with all of these large corporations with immense powers. In the Civil Rights era, it took from the 1930s until 1964 to pass the Civil Right act, despite bipartisan support. They ended up having to re-invent how the Senate votes to do it. It will be interesting to see the law that gets created during this time. Also, I don't think it is possible to divorce the other aspect of what the government is attempting to do here. Guests in our country are exactly that. We depend on the government to vet them in some way to prevent criminals or terrorists from easily crossing the border and causing mayhem. The government has vetted people for several decades in this manner by investigating who the candidate associates with, whether they have a criminal record, etc. If a criminal comes to our country and commits crimes, and it is possible to know this from the social media that the criminal uses, what responsibility does the social media company have?

nightcracker 6y ago

I agree with what you wrote, except that it's the 1st amendment that's relevant. > There is nothing special about a social media company that should give them the ability to infringe on our rights. I personally believe that social media platforms are public spaces (although I don't think it's clear how to precisely define this into law without or minimal loopholes). But I don't think it's inconsistent or hypocritical for a company to not want to lose control over the discourse on its site while simultaneously advocating against government requests for self-reporting of social media accounts due to previously discussed chilling effects.

tomohawk 6y ago
I think in this era we will see how or if our rights will be protected with all of these large corporations with immense powers. In the Civil Rights era, it took from the 1930s until 1964 to pass the Civil Right act, despite bipartisan support. They ended up having to re-invent how the Senate votes to do it. It will be interesting to see the law that gets created during this time. Also, I don't think it is possible to divorce the other aspect of what the government is attempting to do here. Guests in our country are exactly that. We depend on the government to vet them in some way to prevent criminals or terrorists from easily crossing the border and causing mayhem. The government has vetted people for several decades in this manner by investigating who the candidate associates with, whether they have a criminal record, etc. If a criminal comes to our country and commits crimes, and it is possible to know this from the social media that the criminal uses, what responsibility does the social media company have?