4 ms·

Free speech means that the government cannot interfere with your speech (with certain exceptions). It's an essential right to any free democracy. But it absolu

by D13Fd 6y ago

Free speech means that the government cannot interfere with your speech (with certain exceptions). It's an essential right to any free democracy. But it absolutely does not mean that other people have to like you, listen to you, sell goods to you, or allow you to use their platform.

gillytech 6y ago
Except for when governments pressure private companies to do those things that they can't do directly. Pretty sure there's a law against that but I can't remember the name.
beerandt 6y ago
It also means government can't encourage or incentivize a unconstitutional action or violation on its behalf, which includes waiving private party liability. (Which is the real, misunderstood issue with Sec 230.) This includes arrangements with no formal or even informal agreement. Imagine a law waiving criminal and civil liability for lynch mobs, and then government claiming due process isn't violated because it isn't a "government" action, and due process doesn't apply to individuals.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  My understanding is that section 230 doesn’t waive liability, it assigns liability to the content creator rather than publisher, and only for civil, not criminal cases. You believe this is unconstitutional? Is there discussion of this you can point me to?
  - D13Fd 6y ago
    It seems that some people's problem with § 230 is that it permits a publisher to filter content without also risking liability for the content. "Get rid of § 230" is a backwards way to solve the problem that they have. They don't actually want publishers to be liable for the content on their sites (which would, if anything, lead to greatly increased censorship and filtering). They want to STOP companies from censoring what the companies deem misinformation or otherwise offensive content. In other words, they want the law to be "if you control a channel for speech, you are not permitted to censor or filter out what you view as misinformation, incitements to violence, or otherwise offensive content." Again, this has no support in the free speech rights of the first amendment. In fact, it could be viewed as contrary to free speech, since the government would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with and/or find offensive.
    - beerandt 6y ago
      By promoting or demoting, or removing content (without some form of due process) the platform expresses an opinion, making it the act of a publisher, which should be an act they are liable for. >would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with If you choose to build/host a public square, you must provide equal opportunity and access to it. Limiting access thereafter would involve police for criminal acts, or court / restraining orders for civil. Both are performed by govt, within the government's constitutional limits. Due process. If you want to control content and be a publisher, then fine, but now we're talking about assumed liability for content, and an entirely different relationship with content creators. Just as the owners of a private venue are responsible for the actions of entertainers they might hire.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    >In the 1946 case of Marsh v. Alabama, the court ruled that the First and 14th Amendments can apply to private parties. In this case, a "company town" was not allowed to preclude free speech on its sidewalks. Justice Hugo Black wrote, "When we balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment 'lies at the foundation of free government by free men.' " In essence, private property had become the "public square," and must be governed accordingly. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/22/big_tech_monopolies_are_a_threat_to_first_amendment.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/22/big_te...

by D13Fd 6y ago

gillytech 6y ago

Except for when governments pressure private companies to do those things that they can't do directly. Pretty sure there's a law against that but I can't remember the name.

beerandt 6y ago

It also means government can't encourage or incentivize a unconstitutional action or violation on its behalf, which includes waiving private party liability. (Which is the real, misunderstood issue with Sec 230.) This includes arrangements with no formal or even informal agreement. Imagine a law waiving criminal and civil liability for lynch mobs, and then government claiming due process isn't violated because it isn't a "government" action, and due process doesn't apply to individuals.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
My understanding is that section 230 doesn’t waive liability, it assigns liability to the content creator rather than publisher, and only for civil, not criminal cases. You believe this is unconstitutional? Is there discussion of this you can point me to?
- D13Fd 6y ago
  It seems that some people's problem with § 230 is that it permits a publisher to filter content without also risking liability for the content. "Get rid of § 230" is a backwards way to solve the problem that they have. They don't actually want publishers to be liable for the content on their sites (which would, if anything, lead to greatly increased censorship and filtering). They want to STOP companies from censoring what the companies deem misinformation or otherwise offensive content. In other words, they want the law to be "if you control a channel for speech, you are not permitted to censor or filter out what you view as misinformation, incitements to violence, or otherwise offensive content." Again, this has no support in the free speech rights of the first amendment. In fact, it could be viewed as contrary to free speech, since the government would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with and/or find offensive.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    By promoting or demoting, or removing content (without some form of due process) the platform expresses an opinion, making it the act of a publisher, which should be an act they are liable for. >would be forcing people and corporations to carry content on their websites that those people or corporations do not agree with If you choose to build/host a public square, you must provide equal opportunity and access to it. Limiting access thereafter would involve police for criminal acts, or court / restraining orders for civil. Both are performed by govt, within the government's constitutional limits. Due process. If you want to control content and be a publisher, then fine, but now we're talking about assumed liability for content, and an entirely different relationship with content creators. Just as the owners of a private venue are responsible for the actions of entertainers they might hire.
- beerandt 6y ago
  >In the 1946 case of Marsh v. Alabama, the court ruled that the First and 14th Amendments can apply to private parties. In this case, a "company town" was not allowed to preclude free speech on its sidewalks. Justice Hugo Black wrote, "When we balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position. As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment 'lies at the foundation of free government by free men.' " In essence, private property had become the "public square," and must be governed accordingly. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/22/big_tech_monopolies_are_a_threat_to_first_amendment.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/22/big_te...