4 ms·

Before anyone starts complaining about censorship or free speech in the context of the first amendment, I'll just leave this here: https://www.theverge.com/2019

Before anyone starts complaining about censorship or free speech in the context of the first amendment, I'll just leave this here: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ruling-first-amendment-social-media-public-forum https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/17/18682099/supreme-court-ru... Along with the actual text from the constition: AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eloff 6y ago
The first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms or spaces. Perhaps it should when those platforms develop monopoly levels of control over distribution.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- beerandt 6y ago
  The 14th amendment applies right now, as is. It's as much of a civil rights issue as it is freedom of speech.
  - decebalus1 6y ago
    Does it tho? The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. I fail to see how Twitter acts on behalf of government officials.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      It's the equal protection amendment. The meaning of it has been "stretched" a bit (at least from the pov of a textualist/originalist) to constitutionally justify civil rights laws applied to individuals/businesses, not just state governments. So it's "true meaning" is often debated, but as I understand it: If civil rights laws can be/ are interpreted to apply to individuals and businesses via the 14th (which they are), it's hard to also square that diversity of political opinion is not also protected, given that it's the ultimate civil right and we're a democratic-republic. From wiki: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
      - decebalus1 6y ago
        Ok, I'm not a constitutional attorney but this doesn't make sense to me at all. Where does Twitter fit in exactly? As a.. 'state'? As 'the law'? As a 'person' (because it's a corporation)? Also, we're not talking about political diversity here. Unless the diversity involves inciting violence. Nobody wants to censor conservatives. But I would wager that plotting to execute the vice president crosses a line wrt to political diversity. Apple doesn't want the app down because it's full of non-SJWs but to probably avoid liability if they end up using the app to coordinate an attack.
        beerandt 6y ago
        As to 1st part: Honestly, it doesn't make much logical sense, especially to someone reading the text of the constitution with the expectation of understanding it... but they really wanted a way to make civil rights laws happen. 2nd order effects, good case results in bad caselaw, etc. The net effect is that constitutional protections originally meant only to apply to the federal government have, one at a time, over many years, been ruled as being applicable to both States and private businesses. To the point where it's presumed that most/all federal rights/protections should be applied this way. With guns being a currently battled sort-of exception. (Similarly, read the text of the 8th amendment, and try to figure out the bridges crossed to result in Roe v Wade) Twitter fits in as a business, at least in this context, for the sake of this particular argument. (As opposed to those who want to classify it as a utility, or "public square," etc) Some people get upset at it, but the easy comparison is they're the modern version of the 1960's lunch counter or bus company, but instead of skin color, it's political opinion (or sometimes even religious beliefs, depending on the specific topic of discussion).

eloff 6y ago

The first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms or spaces. Perhaps it should when those platforms develop monopoly levels of control over distribution.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
beerandt 6y ago
The 14th amendment applies right now, as is. It's as much of a civil rights issue as it is freedom of speech.
- decebalus1 6y ago
  Does it tho? The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. I fail to see how Twitter acts on behalf of government officials.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    It's the equal protection amendment. The meaning of it has been "stretched" a bit (at least from the pov of a textualist/originalist) to constitutionally justify civil rights laws applied to individuals/businesses, not just state governments. So it's "true meaning" is often debated, but as I understand it: If civil rights laws can be/ are interpreted to apply to individuals and businesses via the 14th (which they are), it's hard to also square that diversity of political opinion is not also protected, given that it's the ultimate civil right and we're a democratic-republic. From wiki: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
    - decebalus1 6y ago
      Ok, I'm not a constitutional attorney but this doesn't make sense to me at all. Where does Twitter fit in exactly? As a.. 'state'? As 'the law'? As a 'person' (because it's a corporation)? Also, we're not talking about political diversity here. Unless the diversity involves inciting violence. Nobody wants to censor conservatives. But I would wager that plotting to execute the vice president crosses a line wrt to political diversity. Apple doesn't want the app down because it's full of non-SJWs but to probably avoid liability if they end up using the app to coordinate an attack.
      - beerandt 6y ago
        As to 1st part: Honestly, it doesn't make much logical sense, especially to someone reading the text of the constitution with the expectation of understanding it... but they really wanted a way to make civil rights laws happen. 2nd order effects, good case results in bad caselaw, etc. The net effect is that constitutional protections originally meant only to apply to the federal government have, one at a time, over many years, been ruled as being applicable to both States and private businesses. To the point where it's presumed that most/all federal rights/protections should be applied this way. With guns being a currently battled sort-of exception. (Similarly, read the text of the 8th amendment, and try to figure out the bridges crossed to result in Roe v Wade) Twitter fits in as a business, at least in this context, for the sake of this particular argument. (As opposed to those who want to classify it as a utility, or "public square," etc) Some people get upset at it, but the easy comparison is they're the modern version of the 1960's lunch counter or bus company, but instead of skin color, it's political opinion (or sometimes even religious beliefs, depending on the specific topic of discussion).