5 ms·

Let's look at the body of the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

Let's look at the body of the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Please observe the first word of the first amendment, "Congress." That means any legislative body: federal, state, or municipal. It does not mean any individual, corporation, or content provider. Furthermore, moderation is not censorship. It has been established that free speech is available to everyone and that moderating a given medium from content it considers objectionable, illegal, or contrary to its means or goals is de facto free speech. To suggest otherwise is counter to the idea that the first amendment was founded on. Not only to prevent monarchs, dictators and governments from suppressing speech but to also prevent monarchs, dictators and governments from forcing government dictated propaganda.

netr0ute 5y ago
This is technically true, but when megacorps become the government within their niche, then maybe the 1st amendment should apply.
- stillbourne 5y ago
  There is nothing stopping anyone from competing in the free market. If you think perhaps there is a reason megacorps should somehow get a revocation of the frist amendment because they are too big, perhaps we should consider breaking them up instead. Free speech is foundational to a free society. Megacorp social media platforms? Not so much. I would rather see Facebook, Google, and Amazon dissolved into a million smaller corporations than see a modification to the first amendment.
  - dexterdog 5y ago
    Where is there a free market?
- 5835372 5y ago
  No they don't. Governments act by means of violence. That's why they are dangerous. Social media companies have never killed, tortured, or imprisoned anyone. The worst they can do is refuse to deal with you.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    Still technically true, but social media companies can conceivably have caused preventable deaths or other bad things due to their algorithms designed to cause hate in the name of "engagement."
adolph 5y ago
> Furthermore, moderation is not censorship. Control is control.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
>Please observe the first word of the first amendment, "Congress." That means any legislative body: federal, state, or municipal. Actually, technically it doesn’t. At the time of the writing, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and not the states. There were later court cases that expanded many of the rights to also include the state governments. Thus, we already have precedent for expanding two the First Amendment applies to: Originally it was Congress, and not it is even Municipal governments. An argument can be made that the power of say Facebook exceeds that of a municipal government to whom the First Amendment applies, and that a Facebook ban is far more chilling than what a small town mayor censoring stuff.
okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
And people will argue whether there was any concept of guns outside of muskets when drafting 2A. The exact placement of letters and punctuation has generally taken a back seat to the "spirit" of the constitution. - - - As to the reason I referenced marsh v alabama, > The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. The rights of a citizen to speak freely on a sidewalk do not go away because the government stops owning sidewalks - - - And I'm pro-moderation, I said as much. I just believe the rules for moderation should be government dictate, not arbitrary company dictate
- stillbourne 5y ago
  Sidewalks are not content providers, don't come with legal terms and conditions, and not legally protected by Section 230. That's a reductionist argument and completely absurd to consider a sidewalk a website. You're analogy is flawed, a sidewalk is more akin to the network infrastructure of the internet, but a website is your analogy is more like a house. And you can kick anyone out of your house you want to because you own that property. Furthermore, government dictated moderation is de facto censorship, not the other way around.
  - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
    that still doesn't speak against the concepts in the supreme court ruling. Someone tried to apply their own terms and conditions to their property. They couldn't because they had made it into a public space with public expectations.
    - stillbourne 5y ago
      Link the case please.
      - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
        I... already did? but here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
No, it means what it says. Florida's Constitution has a similar bit* which would have sufficed just fine, by the way. * http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A1S04 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitut...

netr0ute 5y ago

This is technically true, but when megacorps become the government within their niche, then maybe the 1st amendment should apply.

stillbourne 5y ago
There is nothing stopping anyone from competing in the free market. If you think perhaps there is a reason megacorps should somehow get a revocation of the frist amendment because they are too big, perhaps we should consider breaking them up instead. Free speech is foundational to a free society. Megacorp social media platforms? Not so much. I would rather see Facebook, Google, and Amazon dissolved into a million smaller corporations than see a modification to the first amendment.
- dexterdog 5y ago
  Where is there a free market?
5835372 5y ago
No they don't. Governments act by means of violence. That's why they are dangerous. Social media companies have never killed, tortured, or imprisoned anyone. The worst they can do is refuse to deal with you.
- netr0ute 5y ago
  Still technically true, but social media companies can conceivably have caused preventable deaths or other bad things due to their algorithms designed to cause hate in the name of "engagement."

adolph 5y ago

> Furthermore, moderation is not censorship. Control is control.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

>Please observe the first word of the first amendment, "Congress." That means any legislative body: federal, state, or municipal. Actually, technically it doesn’t. At the time of the writing, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and not the states. There were later court cases that expanded many of the rights to also include the state governments. Thus, we already have precedent for expanding two the First Amendment applies to: Originally it was Congress, and not it is even Municipal governments. An argument can be made that the power of say Facebook exceeds that of a municipal government to whom the First Amendment applies, and that a Facebook ban is far more chilling than what a small town mayor censoring stuff.

okdjnfweonfe 5y ago

And people will argue whether there was any concept of guns outside of muskets when drafting 2A. The exact placement of letters and punctuation has generally taken a back seat to the "spirit" of the constitution. - - - As to the reason I referenced marsh v alabama, > The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. The rights of a citizen to speak freely on a sidewalk do not go away because the government stops owning sidewalks - - - And I'm pro-moderation, I said as much. I just believe the rules for moderation should be government dictate, not arbitrary company dictate

stillbourne 5y ago
Sidewalks are not content providers, don't come with legal terms and conditions, and not legally protected by Section 230. That's a reductionist argument and completely absurd to consider a sidewalk a website. You're analogy is flawed, a sidewalk is more akin to the network infrastructure of the internet, but a website is your analogy is more like a house. And you can kick anyone out of your house you want to because you own that property. Furthermore, government dictated moderation is de facto censorship, not the other way around.
- okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
  that still doesn't speak against the concepts in the supreme court ruling. Someone tried to apply their own terms and conditions to their property. They couldn't because they had made it into a public space with public expectations.
  - stillbourne 5y ago
    Link the case please.
    - okdjnfweonfe 5y ago
      I... already did? but here it is again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

readflaggedcomm 5y ago

No, it means what it says. Florida's Constitution has a similar bit* which would have sufficed just fine, by the way. * http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A1S04 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitut...