3 ms·

I'm not sure I follow. What twitter/google did is legal in the US. Free speech is covered by the First Amendment only as a protection against Government censors

I'm not sure I follow. What twitter/google did is legal in the US. Free speech is covered by the First Amendment only as a protection against Government censorship. Private companies can do what they want. It's basically a property issue. Here's how someone on Twitter explained it (this made sense to me): "Trump can say what he wishes, and so can Jack Dorsey, each with their own property. Trump has no right to shout from Dorsey's platform any more than Dorsey has the right to shout from the balcony of Trump tower."

tonystubblebine 6y ago
Also, you completely changed your comment while I was responding. Hard to discuss with you that way.
smitty1e 6y ago
Twitter has the letter of the law on its side. Twitter has also urinated all over the spirit of the law. Down with Twitter and its monstrous intolerance.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Which law? I looked around but couldn't find the one that said "the press must print anything pushed at them by their readers". I tried to look for the one that said "broadcast media shall carry any and all spoken word essays from their viewers". So which law's spirit has been urinated over here?
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    Well, for example, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      ummm, the only US section there is: >A Florida right of reply law (referring to print media) was overturned by Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), while a FCC policy (referring to broadcast media) was affirmed in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The FCC policy was completely overturned in 1987. It's called the Fairness Doctrine. Some people believe that ending it was a mistake, but it was ended.
      - FeepingCreature 6y ago
        As was said: "Twitter is within the letter of the law." I don't think anyone's saying they don't have the legal right to do what they're doing. But there's such a thing as moral right, and the existence of fairness doctrine and right of reply shows that a moral right to fair access and representation is not a niche view.
        PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        You mean the prior existence of the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was abolished with general support. > Reporters argued that they, not the FCC, should make decisions about balancing the fairness of stories. They believed that the fairness doctrine had a chilling effect by deterring them from tackling controversial issues rather than worrying about whether they could meet the FCC’s fairness standards. > By the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was losing clout. The deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration and the technological advances that were rendering scarcity arguments moot combined to pressure the FCC to abandon the doctrine. In 1987 the FCC formally abolished it. (from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctrine https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctri...) The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast media, it never applied to cable or print media, which FB and Twitter are conceptually much closer to. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that a book publisher should be required to print rebuttals to a recent title. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that cable media had to follow the same pre-1987 FCC guidelines. So, yes, I would say that attempting to apply a policy (and note: policy, not law) that was abandoned more than 30 years ago to internet messaging systems is a niche view.
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    In the case of the press, the idea of journalism as opposed to the propaganda in evidence. We're going The Full Orwell, so I guess I had better be about loving me some Big Brother.

tonystubblebine 6y ago

Also, you completely changed your comment while I was responding. Hard to discuss with you that way.

smitty1e 6y ago

Twitter has the letter of the law on its side. Twitter has also urinated all over the spirit of the law. Down with Twitter and its monstrous intolerance.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Which law? I looked around but couldn't find the one that said "the press must print anything pushed at them by their readers". I tried to look for the one that said "broadcast media shall carry any and all spoken word essays from their viewers". So which law's spirit has been urinated over here?
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Well, for example, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    ummm, the only US section there is: >A Florida right of reply law (referring to print media) was overturned by Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), while a FCC policy (referring to broadcast media) was affirmed in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The FCC policy was completely overturned in 1987. It's called the Fairness Doctrine. Some people believe that ending it was a mistake, but it was ended.
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      As was said: "Twitter is within the letter of the law." I don't think anyone's saying they don't have the legal right to do what they're doing. But there's such a thing as moral right, and the existence of fairness doctrine and right of reply shows that a moral right to fair access and representation is not a niche view.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        You mean the prior existence of the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was abolished with general support. > Reporters argued that they, not the FCC, should make decisions about balancing the fairness of stories. They believed that the fairness doctrine had a chilling effect by deterring them from tackling controversial issues rather than worrying about whether they could meet the FCC’s fairness standards. > By the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was losing clout. The deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration and the technological advances that were rendering scarcity arguments moot combined to pressure the FCC to abandon the doctrine. In 1987 the FCC formally abolished it. (from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctrine https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctri...) The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast media, it never applied to cable or print media, which FB and Twitter are conceptually much closer to. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that a book publisher should be required to print rebuttals to a recent title. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that cable media had to follow the same pre-1987 FCC guidelines. So, yes, I would say that attempting to apply a policy (and note: policy, not law) that was abandoned more than 30 years ago to internet messaging systems is a niche view.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  In the case of the press, the idea of journalism as opposed to the propaganda in evidence. We're going The Full Orwell, so I guess I had better be about loving me some Big Brother.