5 ms·

How can this possibly hold up in court? Doesn't "big tech" have a right to free speech?

by valine 5y ago

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I guess the question will come down to whose free speech rights are more important, the end-users' or the corporate entity's?
- valine 5y ago
  The 1st amendment in the US constitution prevents the government from stifling speech. Being banned on privately owned and operated social media is not a violation of your right to free speech.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    The US Constitution only prohibits the government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about preventing a privately owned and operated company from doing so.
    - ppseafield 5y ago
      Yes. The constitution doesn't include Section 230 either. Other laws besides the constitution also regulate the activities of privately owned companies. This doesn't have anything to do with the government not being able to abridge the free speech of its citizens.
  - spazrunaway 5y ago
    Wow, I've never heard this take before. I'm in awe at the immensity of your brain. It actually is a terrible violation of my right to free speech. For those of us with a deeper understanding of rights than the XKCD "le show you the door" comic, we're concerned with people being denied service (in an entirely arbitrary, incoherent and inconsistent manner often based on race and political opinion) from what are effectively essential services and utilities that they may rely on for their livelihoods. I don't want my power, or phone service, or bank accounts disconnected because somebody at the SPLC called me a racist; huh, gee, those aren't mentioned in the 1st amendment either, even through they're often operated by private companies. And this sort of tactical constitutionalism really wears thin when the very same people turn around and demand that the NFL respect Colin Kapernick's "free speech rights", or wax poetic about how wonderful it is that opposition forces in Syria can use American technologies like Twitter and Signal to coordinate and speak freely - then claim it's also wonderful for these platforms to censor so-called racists here in the US, or to cooperate with the FBI to jail political dissidents who do such terrible things as loitering in public buildings.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Besides breaking the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and poisoning the forum, they have the side effect of discrediting the view you're arguing for—which isn't in your interests. And if your view is right, that means you're discrediting the truth as well—which isn't in any of our interests. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
  - ttt0 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
tryonenow 5y ago
What does free speech entail when a literal handful of unelected people control the modern public square?
JI00912 5y ago
Depends what they want to claim to be. If they write, or if they orchestrate an ongoing discussion so that they de facto decide what is said, then they are "speaking". They can do that, but not while claiming to be a platform. Platform or publisher.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  This is completely wrong. There is no distinction between platform or publisher in Section 230, no matter how often people repeat this ridiculous take. 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...
  - chmod600 5y ago
    That's just a law. It's not in the Constitution. Depending on how people see Big Tech, the law may or may not be changed. And the kinds of arguments FB, et al., make to defeat this law will affect how people see Big Tech.
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      Sure, but people are currently making lots of comments thinking the law, as written, makes some distinction between publishers and platforms. Which it doesn’t.
      - JI00912 5y ago
        > Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act Did I mention Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act? Well no I didn't. The concept is broader than any law. And you should not be getting legal advice from Mike at techdirt anyway.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    That's really cool, but we're not talking what the law is, but what it should be.
oceanplexian 5y ago
> Doesn't "big tech" have a right to free speech? If corporations had an unlimited right to free speech, the Civil Rights Act wouldn't be constitutional. Clearly though, it is, so the courts have found that some limits on private businesses ability to discriminate is legal.

How can this possibly hold up in court? Doesn't "big tech" have a right to free speech?

by valine 5y ago

How can this possibly hold up in court? Doesn't "big tech" have a right to free speech?

I guess the question will come down to whose free speech rights are more important, the end-users' or the corporate entity's?

valine 5y ago
The 1st amendment in the US constitution prevents the government from stifling speech. Being banned on privately owned and operated social media is not a violation of your right to free speech.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  The US Constitution only prohibits the government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. It says nothing about preventing a privately owned and operated company from doing so.
  - ppseafield 5y ago
    Yes. The constitution doesn't include Section 230 either. Other laws besides the constitution also regulate the activities of privately owned companies. This doesn't have anything to do with the government not being able to abridge the free speech of its citizens.
- spazrunaway 5y ago
  Wow, I've never heard this take before. I'm in awe at the immensity of your brain. It actually is a terrible violation of my right to free speech. For those of us with a deeper understanding of rights than the XKCD "le show you the door" comic, we're concerned with people being denied service (in an entirely arbitrary, incoherent and inconsistent manner often based on race and political opinion) from what are effectively essential services and utilities that they may rely on for their livelihoods. I don't want my power, or phone service, or bank accounts disconnected because somebody at the SPLC called me a racist; huh, gee, those aren't mentioned in the 1st amendment either, even through they're often operated by private companies. And this sort of tactical constitutionalism really wears thin when the very same people turn around and demand that the NFL respect Colin Kapernick's "free speech rights", or wax poetic about how wonderful it is that opposition forces in Syria can use American technologies like Twitter and Signal to coordinate and speak freely - then claim it's also wonderful for these platforms to censor so-called racists here in the US, or to cooperate with the FBI to jail political dissidents who do such terrible things as loitering in public buildings.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Besides breaking the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and poisoning the forum, they have the side effect of discrediting the view you're arguing for—which isn't in your interests. And if your view is right, that means you're discrediting the truth as well—which isn't in any of our interests. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- ttt0 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

tryonenow 5y ago

What does free speech entail when a literal handful of unelected people control the modern public square?

JI00912 5y ago

Depends what they want to claim to be. If they write, or if they orchestrate an ongoing discussion so that they de facto decide what is said, then they are "speaking". They can do that, but not while claiming to be a platform. Platform or publisher.

mikeyouse 5y ago
This is completely wrong. There is no distinction between platform or publisher in Section 230, no matter how often people repeat this ridiculous take. 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...
- chmod600 5y ago
  That's just a law. It's not in the Constitution. Depending on how people see Big Tech, the law may or may not be changed. And the kinds of arguments FB, et al., make to defeat this law will affect how people see Big Tech.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    Sure, but people are currently making lots of comments thinking the law, as written, makes some distinction between publishers and platforms. Which it doesn’t.
    - JI00912 5y ago
      > Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act Did I mention Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act? Well no I didn't. The concept is broader than any law. And you should not be getting legal advice from Mike at techdirt anyway.
- ttt0 5y ago
  That's really cool, but we're not talking what the law is, but what it should be.

oceanplexian 5y ago

> Doesn't "big tech" have a right to free speech? If corporations had an unlimited right to free speech, the Civil Rights Act wouldn't be constitutional. Clearly though, it is, so the courts have found that some limits on private businesses ability to discriminate is legal.