4 ms·

My objection to that argument is that the companies claim that the content on the website isn't their speech when invoking Section 230, then claim that it is th

My objection to that argument is that the companies claim that the content on the website isn't their speech when invoking Section 230, then claim that it is their speech in order to invoke the First Amendment. Section 230 says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So how can a company have free speech rights regarding content if they aren't the speaker?

nobody9999 6y ago
Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1]. Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all. Rather, this is about freedom of association. Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0]. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
- leereeves 6y ago
  Sorry, I thought this discussion was on a different post. You're right, the argument above doesn't apply to Stripe. Instead, I would respond that freedom of association is considerably more limited than other rights. Soldiers, students, jurors, prisoners, etc are often forced into association with people they would rather not associate with, and businesses are legally forced into association to protect the rights of other people. When there is a conflict between freedom of association and other rights or government interests, freedom of association rarely prevails. So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous. A fair point. How would you apply that in this case? I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the relevance of applying your (correct in certain circumstances) reasoning in this particular case.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the details of this case, so I won't speculate about how this case might be resolved under current law. But the general principle I would apply here is that people who own important infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to interfere in elections (Trump 2024 in this case, I assume) by refusing to allow candidates to use that infrastructure. I don't think that's controversial in the case of, say, electricity or phone service, and it seems reasonable to apply it to payment processing as well.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        Your argument makes little or no sense to me. 1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society; 2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? 3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0]; 4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available. You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well. And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service_providers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...

nobody9999 6y ago

Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1]. Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all. Rather, this is about freedom of association. Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0]. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

leereeves 6y ago
Sorry, I thought this discussion was on a different post. You're right, the argument above doesn't apply to Stripe. Instead, I would respond that freedom of association is considerably more limited than other rights. Soldiers, students, jurors, prisoners, etc are often forced into association with people they would rather not associate with, and businesses are legally forced into association to protect the rights of other people. When there is a conflict between freedom of association and other rights or government interests, freedom of association rarely prevails. So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous. A fair point. How would you apply that in this case? I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the relevance of applying your (correct in certain circumstances) reasoning in this particular case.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the details of this case, so I won't speculate about how this case might be resolved under current law. But the general principle I would apply here is that people who own important infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to interfere in elections (Trump 2024 in this case, I assume) by refusing to allow candidates to use that infrastructure. I don't think that's controversial in the case of, say, electricity or phone service, and it seems reasonable to apply it to payment processing as well.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      Your argument makes little or no sense to me. 1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society; 2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? 3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0]; 4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available. You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well. And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service_providers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...