4 ms·

I am curious about why people think that this is an attack on first amendment? I thought the point of this legislation to preserve first amendment right of the

I am curious about why people think that this is an attack on first amendment? I thought the point of this legislation to preserve first amendment right of the users. Maybe this is a choice between first amendment rights of the dominant platform companies vs. first amendment rights of 100s million of their users? If that's the case, wouldn't we want to take the users' side in this issue vs. platforms?

anotherman554 5y ago
You don't have a first amendment right to star on a TV show on NBC, or to have your book published by the publisher of Harry Potter, or to have a news article you wrote placed on the New York Times front page, or to have a social media company publish your "thoughts" for the world to see. Your desire for a social media company to print what you write is not a first amendment issue at all.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  Interesting SCOTUS found you have free speech rights at shopping malls in California. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopp...
  - vkou 5y ago
    Did they also find that you have the free speech rights to commandeer the mall's PA system?
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Quoting from the opinion in this case here: > The California Supreme Court held the individuals had the right, under state law, to engage in the proposed activity. The ruling did not compel the shopping center to say anything at all, and the ruling did not prohibit the center from saying anything it wished, when and how it wished. And it doesn't apply because: > FAIR and PruneYard establish that compelling a person to allow a visitor access to the person’s property, for the purpose of speaking, is not a First Amendment violation, so long as the person is not compelled to speak, the person is not restricted from speaking, and the message of the visitor is not likely to be attributed to the person. The Florida statutes now at issue, unlike the state actions in FAIR and PruneYard, explicitly forbid social media platforms from appending their own statements to posts by some users. And the statutes compel the platforms to change their own speech in other respects, including, for example, by dictating how the platforms may arrange speech on their sites. This is a far greater burden on the platforms’ own speech than was involved in FAIR or PruneYard.
timdev2 5y ago
The first amendment constrains the government. A social media site censoring your post does not infringe on your first amendment rights. It limits your speech, but the 1A protects your right to be free of government interference with your speech.
- g42gregory 5y ago
  Basically you saying that the first amendment does not apply to the platform companies. Ok, that part makes sense to me.
  - URSpider94 5y ago
    Private companies have the ultimate decision of what speech they allow on their platforms. This has always been true. The right of free speech includes also the right to not speak - no private platform can be compelled to publish speech that they don't want to publish; doing so would be a violation of their first amendment right to dictate how they speak and don't speak.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    What you choose to repeat or amplify is an aspect of speech. In other words, the first amendment protects both people's ability to say (or not say) whatever they like without governmental restriction, as well as others' ability to host (or not host) whatever speech they'd like without governmental restriction. In addition, this falls under freedom of association; people (individually and in groups) are free to choose who they associate with, and include or exclude anyone they like based on any criteria they like (with certain specific exceptions regarding protected classes). "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" - for instance, a restaurant or store (or an individual at home) can kick out someone being disruptive, and so can a web host or social media platform.
  - nonameiguess 5y ago
    It's not even just about freedom of speech. It's freedom of a private property owner to do whatever the heck they want with their property. Facebook and Google own their services. The government can't compel them to host content they don't want to host any more than it can compel me to nail a letter to my wall that you send me. I own that wall and can do whatever the heck I want with it.
jdavis703 5y ago
The 1st Amendment protects people and corporations from government censorship. But private entities are under no responsibility to ensure free speech. For example, a Christian private school is free to ban science teachers from teaching the theory of evolution.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Public schools are free to ban that too. Teachers are employees, unlike students.
jcranmer 5y ago
The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" (the Fourteenth Amendment brings in incorporation, so "Congress" should be read any US governmental authority). By definition, no private actor (at least, no one not acting under color of law) is capable of violating your First Amendment rights. While I understand that people try to frame this as protecting First Amendment rights, this is actually very literally the government requiring the companies to publish certain kinds of speech. There is a provision in the law that would require any covered social media provider to carry all posts from any declared candidate. Turns out, though, there's a handy SCOTUS case that says that requiring a newspaper to publish replies from elected officials is unconstitutional abrogation of the newspaper's free speech. Just as the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, it also protects the freedom from compelled speech.
URSpider94 5y ago
Courts have generally held that the paramount first-amendment right is the right NOT to speak. The government can't force Facebook to let other people commandeer its megaphone. This has been clearly decided in caselaw that the judge quoted amply in his decision. This also isn't new to social media - just because a newspaper has a "letters to the editor" section, doesn't obligate them to publish every letter they receive, or even to be fair and unbalanced in the choice of letters that they do publish.

anotherman554 5y ago

You don't have a first amendment right to star on a TV show on NBC, or to have your book published by the publisher of Harry Potter, or to have a news article you wrote placed on the New York Times front page, or to have a social media company publish your "thoughts" for the world to see. Your desire for a social media company to print what you write is not a first amendment issue at all.

barbacoa 5y ago
Interesting SCOTUS found you have free speech rights at shopping malls in California. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopping-center-v-robins https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-shopp...
- vkou 5y ago
  Did they also find that you have the free speech rights to commandeer the mall's PA system?
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Quoting from the opinion in this case here: > The California Supreme Court held the individuals had the right, under state law, to engage in the proposed activity. The ruling did not compel the shopping center to say anything at all, and the ruling did not prohibit the center from saying anything it wished, when and how it wished. And it doesn't apply because: > FAIR and PruneYard establish that compelling a person to allow a visitor access to the person’s property, for the purpose of speaking, is not a First Amendment violation, so long as the person is not compelled to speak, the person is not restricted from speaking, and the message of the visitor is not likely to be attributed to the person. The Florida statutes now at issue, unlike the state actions in FAIR and PruneYard, explicitly forbid social media platforms from appending their own statements to posts by some users. And the statutes compel the platforms to change their own speech in other respects, including, for example, by dictating how the platforms may arrange speech on their sites. This is a far greater burden on the platforms’ own speech than was involved in FAIR or PruneYard.

timdev2 5y ago

The first amendment constrains the government. A social media site censoring your post does not infringe on your first amendment rights. It limits your speech, but the 1A protects your right to be free of government interference with your speech.

g42gregory 5y ago
Basically you saying that the first amendment does not apply to the platform companies. Ok, that part makes sense to me.
- URSpider94 5y ago
  Private companies have the ultimate decision of what speech they allow on their platforms. This has always been true. The right of free speech includes also the right to not speak - no private platform can be compelled to publish speech that they don't want to publish; doing so would be a violation of their first amendment right to dictate how they speak and don't speak.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  What you choose to repeat or amplify is an aspect of speech. In other words, the first amendment protects both people's ability to say (or not say) whatever they like without governmental restriction, as well as others' ability to host (or not host) whatever speech they'd like without governmental restriction. In addition, this falls under freedom of association; people (individually and in groups) are free to choose who they associate with, and include or exclude anyone they like based on any criteria they like (with certain specific exceptions regarding protected classes). "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" - for instance, a restaurant or store (or an individual at home) can kick out someone being disruptive, and so can a web host or social media platform.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  It's not even just about freedom of speech. It's freedom of a private property owner to do whatever the heck they want with their property. Facebook and Google own their services. The government can't compel them to host content they don't want to host any more than it can compel me to nail a letter to my wall that you send me. I own that wall and can do whatever the heck I want with it.

jdavis703 5y ago

The 1st Amendment protects people and corporations from government censorship. But private entities are under no responsibility to ensure free speech. For example, a Christian private school is free to ban science teachers from teaching the theory of evolution.

threatofrain 5y ago
Public schools are free to ban that too. Teachers are employees, unlike students.

jcranmer 5y ago

The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law" (the Fourteenth Amendment brings in incorporation, so "Congress" should be read any US governmental authority). By definition, no private actor (at least, no one not acting under color of law) is capable of violating your First Amendment rights. While I understand that people try to frame this as protecting First Amendment rights, this is actually very literally the government requiring the companies to publish certain kinds of speech. There is a provision in the law that would require any covered social media provider to carry all posts from any declared candidate. Turns out, though, there's a handy SCOTUS case that says that requiring a newspaper to publish replies from elected officials is unconstitutional abrogation of the newspaper's free speech. Just as the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, it also protects the freedom from compelled speech.

URSpider94 5y ago

Courts have generally held that the paramount first-amendment right is the right NOT to speak. The government can't force Facebook to let other people commandeer its megaphone. This has been clearly decided in caselaw that the judge quoted amply in his decision. This also isn't new to social media - just because a newspaper has a "letters to the editor" section, doesn't obligate them to publish every letter they receive, or even to be fair and unbalanced in the choice of letters that they do publish.