3 ms·

How could that conceivably pass constitutional law? The government mandating a private enterprise carry government propaganda seems to be the exact thing the 1s

by olliej 6y ago

How could that conceivably pass constitutional law? The government mandating a private enterprise carry government propaganda seems to be the exact thing the 1st amendment is intended to prevent.

barbacoa 6y ago
SCOTUS has ruled on a case very close to this and it held up. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ratsmack 6y ago
Sometimes laws like this are pushed in hopes of a lawsuit being filed and subsequently reviewed by the SCOTUS.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  Good, the question of whether social media with large scale is considered a public square needs to be answered.
  - ratsmack 6y ago
    My feeling is that a publicly traded company should not be treated the same as a private company... this is a gray area.
    - ludamad 6y ago
      That would be an interesting distinction. You'd have to make sure you didn't just open up new reasons to stay private in name only
cigaser 6y ago
Is it a platform anyone can use, or private publisher?
- nefitty 6y ago
  Is being a politician a protected class?
  - protomyth 6y ago
    For ads, yes they are. https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...
    - etchalon 6y ago
      Access fairness has absolutely nothing to do with protection, and even within those laws, and the FCC only governs purchased spectrum. It does not, for instance, cover cable operators and its ability to regulate the internet is severely limited.
      - protomyth 6y ago
        Cable operators are governed by equal opportunity rules for political candidates. Politicians extending this to social media will probably be the next step.
        etchalon 6y ago
        I can find no law, or regulation, which specifies that cable operators are governed by those types of rules. Broadcast media (radio and television) are. As far as I know, Cable operators who run political ads do so because of the money they generate.
        protomyth 6y ago
        https://www.dwt.com/insights/2006/08/political-programming-obligations-for-cable-system https://www.dwt.com/insights/2006/08/political-programming-o... is a summary from as early as 2006.
protomyth 6y ago
There are election laws that mandate equal access to ads for politicians, so a bill considering deplatforming as election interference would not be out of line with current laws.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Campaigns can still buy ads on the platforms.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    Yeah, but when every post / tweet is an ad, I would imagine the new protection is required in their minds.
  - joshribakoff 6y ago
    That is understood, the comment you replied to was just using it as an example of a law that regulates what a platform may do. If laws can be made to force them to run ads, it sets a precedent for similar laws that apply to content other than ads
- joshribakoff 6y ago
  An open question may be whether this proposal actually forces the platforms to allow all politicians to post, or if it actually just mandates equal access It seems there should be some discretion to me, for example if a politician is posting content that otherwise violates the rules, is it ok to ban the politician for the content of the post? For instance, with the equal access to ads for politicians, it seems like it ought to be the platforms right to ban grotesque images of aborted fetuses or gunshot victims (with or without connection to a political ad). If a politician repeatedly violates these rules, it seems like it should be ok to ban the politician on the basis of the content violating the rules

by olliej 6y ago

How could that conceivably pass constitutional law? The government mandating a private enterprise carry government propaganda seems to be the exact thing the 1st amendment is intended to prevent.

barbacoa 6y ago

SCOTUS has ruled on a case very close to this and it held up. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ratsmack 6y ago

Sometimes laws like this are pushed in hopes of a lawsuit being filed and subsequently reviewed by the SCOTUS.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
Good, the question of whether social media with large scale is considered a public square needs to be answered.
- ratsmack 6y ago
  My feeling is that a publicly traded company should not be treated the same as a private company... this is a gray area.
  - ludamad 6y ago
    That would be an interesting distinction. You'd have to make sure you didn't just open up new reasons to stay private in name only

cigaser 6y ago

Is it a platform anyone can use, or private publisher?

nefitty 6y ago
Is being a politician a protected class?
- protomyth 6y ago
  For ads, yes they are. https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...
  - etchalon 6y ago
    Access fairness has absolutely nothing to do with protection, and even within those laws, and the FCC only governs purchased spectrum. It does not, for instance, cover cable operators and its ability to regulate the internet is severely limited.
    - protomyth 6y ago
      Cable operators are governed by equal opportunity rules for political candidates. Politicians extending this to social media will probably be the next step.
      - etchalon 6y ago
        I can find no law, or regulation, which specifies that cable operators are governed by those types of rules. Broadcast media (radio and television) are. As far as I know, Cable operators who run political ads do so because of the money they generate.
        protomyth 6y ago
        https://www.dwt.com/insights/2006/08/political-programming-obligations-for-cable-system https://www.dwt.com/insights/2006/08/political-programming-o... is a summary from as early as 2006.

protomyth 6y ago

There are election laws that mandate equal access to ads for politicians, so a bill considering deplatforming as election interference would not be out of line with current laws.

heavyset_go 6y ago
Campaigns can still buy ads on the platforms.
- protomyth 6y ago
  Yeah, but when every post / tweet is an ad, I would imagine the new protection is required in their minds.
- joshribakoff 6y ago
  That is understood, the comment you replied to was just using it as an example of a law that regulates what a platform may do. If laws can be made to force them to run ads, it sets a precedent for similar laws that apply to content other than ads
joshribakoff 6y ago
An open question may be whether this proposal actually forces the platforms to allow all politicians to post, or if it actually just mandates equal access It seems there should be some discretion to me, for example if a politician is posting content that otherwise violates the rules, is it ok to ban the politician for the content of the post? For instance, with the equal access to ads for politicians, it seems like it ought to be the platforms right to ban grotesque images of aborted fetuses or gunshot victims (with or without connection to a political ad). If a politician repeatedly violates these rules, it seems like it should be ok to ban the politician on the basis of the content violating the rules