4 ms·
Intuitively (though I don’t know enough to talk about this from a legal standpoint), it seems fairly obvious to me that social media platforms are a kind of “sh
by mewse 6y ago
Intuitively (though I don’t know enough to talk about this from a legal standpoint), it seems fairly obvious to me that social media platforms are a kind of “shared speech” system.
You write something as a user, and the social media platform repeats it later to other visitors to the platform. In effect, both you and the platform are “speaking” whatever you write. The platform can’t compel you to say something, and you can’t compel them to say something either.
Conceptually it’s a bit like slogans on vehicle license plates in the US, where it’s legal for you to mask out the slogan on a license plate (though illegal to mask the functional parts of the plate, such as the registration number), and it’s also legal for the state to refuse to put your requested message on a license plate. It’s shared speech, and neither side can be compelled to engage in speech that they object to.
I don’t see a problem, personally, from this perspective. You don’t get to compel someone else to say what you want them to say; whoever you’re asking to repeat your words always gets an opportunity to refuse. And of course, there can then be consequences for that refusal or non-refusal.
- marcus_holmes 6y agothis seems like an end-run around the rules: "I can't stop you from saying something, but I can stop them from allowing it to be said on their platform"
- sokoloff 6y agoThe license plate topic went all the way to the Supreme Court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard where the court found 6-3 that you could not be compelled to display a state motto that you morally objected to.