6 ms·
>"The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as the
by CountDrewku 5y ago
>"The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would," Hinkle wrote.
Talk about contradictory statements. In other words "we want to be the arbiter of allowed speech and continue our monopolistic conglomerate with other companies to shut down what we don't like in hopes of garnering the favor of the current party in power"
If someone Trump like gets back into office this is going to backfire in the faces of people supporting this stuff.
- lame-robot-hoax 5y agoIt’s really not contradictory at all. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speech https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec... https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/flag-salutes-and-other-compelled-speech https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/f...
- takeda 5y ago1st amendment is to prevent the government to punish you (for example jailing) for speaking about something the government doesn't want as well as forcing to say something you don't agree with (for example look at Navalny in Russia or Protasevich in Belarus). Since corporations are also people as SCOTUS ruled they have similar protections. Asking them to host content they otherwise don't approve might be like I would require you to say great things about Biden when you're a Trump supporter. It would suppress your freedom of speech, don't you think? It's like Russia requiring to say great things about Putin and Belarus about Lukashenko.
- dddddddan 5y agoThis just shows you don't understand what the 1st amendment is.
- CountDrewku 5y agoI understand it perfectly and your "it's a private business" retort doesn't hold up in my opinion. Feel free to read my multiple other comments. The government can restrict your speech by means other than passing laws.
- wonderwonder 5y agoIt's their platform they can censor who they want. Same concept if you had a personal blog and deleted certain comments and banned posters for posting things you disagreed with. Sure, some people may complain and say you banned X while allowing Y but at the end of the day its your blog and you can do what you want. The government certainly should not be able to come in and fine you for deleting comments on your blog.
- barbacoa 5y ago"We don't serve colored folks here."
- dddddddan 5y agoI think I missed where politicians are a protected class.
- Anon1096 5y agoCan government force companies (say, Parlor or Gab) to display posts from a protected class they wouldn't want to host? Forcing a platform to display women or black or other group's posts seems like it'd be equally anti-First Amendment to me.
- anoonmoose 5y agoIt is my (layman, not-a-lawyer, possibly incorrect) understanding that, if they were to state that they did not allow a protect class to join and banned all members of that class from joining, they would encounter significant legal issues. Which would most likely be avoided by just enacting the policy silently (risky) or becoming an invite-only service (probably legal).
- wonderwonder 5y agoIts an interesting question, the gay wedding cake case "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" was a first test and it seems to say probably not but the final judgement was based on religious freedom. Will probably need another case to determine. Regarding my personal opinion, I think they should be allowed to deny service to who they want as its a core feature of the business. I think this is different than a say black / white restricted eating areas as the core feature of those business' is to feed people, not to facilitate personal race / sexuality based interactions. Just my opinion though I am sure there are edge cases that would make me pause.
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoI'm not seeing contradictory statements? - The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host - and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would These aren't contradictory. If a site does want to host a politician's speech then they can?
- Dracophoenix 5y agoAnd if a site doesn't? The issue is one of compelled association. The First Amendment isn't just about choosing to be involved with who you want but also choosing not to be involved with who you don't want. This law abridges the rights of Facebook et al and potentially every website on the Internet to disassociate themselves from certain individuals.
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoI know. I agree. I didn't disagree with the original statement.