5 ms·

A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.

by ixtli 5y ago

calvin 5y ago
The constitution protects all American people and businesses. People should absolutely study it, understand it, and use it as part of their reasoning when it comes to responses to government or other legal requests.
pfortuny 5y ago
Honestly, what is the problem?
jrochkind1 5y ago
I'm not following what you mean, what is it you say they shouldn't be allowed to do? The first ammendment does not apply to private companies at all -- well, it applies in that it gives them free speach rights themselves, so if you mean by "shouldn't be allowed to interpret" that they shouldn't be legally able to express this opinion, well, that'd be a first ammendment problem. But it doesn't restrict private company's behavior at all. Private companies are not required by the first ammendment to give anyone free speech at all. Which is a kind of weird thing in this statement, they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this, or as if private companies should be prevented from limiting speech (in general, that would in fact be the first ammendment problem, to compel the private company to provide a platform! although there are ways around that). But as legally weird or incorrect as I think their reasoning or interpretation of the constitution, I don't know why we would think they wouldn't be "allowed" to express a wrong opinion. Under what grounds do you think someone would have a claim to sue them? Why do you think it would make it to the supreme court? I think you may not have an educated legal basis for that opinion, but you're still allowed to have it and express it!
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  > they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this What portion of their statement are you referring to? I didn't notice anything in this post suggesting that they're required to support free speech, only that they agree with the underlying principles which inspired that provision in the constitution.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    For instance: > It is not our place, nor should it be the place of any technology company, to interfere with Americans’ civil rights and sit in judgment over their lawful expression. To me suggesting a private company "interferes with Americans civil rights" by deciding what content to publish, suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment obligation. But I'm not really interested in arguing about it.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >...suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment[sic] obligation. Yes. private companies have the obligation to protect their first amendment rights, as part of their obligation to their investors/owners to maximize profit. Claiming that private companies has some sort of obligation to you by allowing you a platform for your speech without interference or moderation assumes that such private entities have no first amendment rights. That's obviously false. If private entities (which you and I and most everyone else) are required to host the speech of others whether they agree with such speech or not, then I can use the same argument for me being able to come over to your house and play gay, furry, midget, scheiser porn on all your screens, project it on the exterior of your house and you have to allow it. If you don't, you're infringing on my first amendment rights. Which is, of course ridiculous on its face. Whether it's a screen in your home or a server in one of Facebook's data centers, the principle is the same.
meerita 5y ago
Anyone should be able to interpret.
AmericanChopper 5y ago
People should, on every occasion, first inquire with the government before exercising their most fundamental rights. It is the only way to ensure that the people maintain the ongoing approval of their government.
- coldacid 5y ago
  I think you forgot the sarcasm tag at the end there.
  - AmericanChopper 5y ago
    Do you think I was downvoted more by people who disagree with my actual sentiment, or people who couldn’t see I was being sarcastic?
    - coldacid 5y ago
      It's probably 50/50.
vmception 5y ago
Eh their interpretation is fine from my perspective, what everyone around them does to make them ignorable is fine too, and it’s up to Gab to figure out how to be resilient and route around that. Congress trying to figure out what is happening within the country is fine too. It’s a lot of people and businesses and they don’t know.

A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.

by ixtli 5y ago

A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.

calvin 5y ago

The constitution protects all American people and businesses. People should absolutely study it, understand it, and use it as part of their reasoning when it comes to responses to government or other legal requests.

pfortuny 5y ago

Honestly, what is the problem?

jrochkind1 5y ago

I'm not following what you mean, what is it you say they shouldn't be allowed to do? The first ammendment does not apply to private companies at all -- well, it applies in that it gives them free speach rights themselves, so if you mean by "shouldn't be allowed to interpret" that they shouldn't be legally able to express this opinion, well, that'd be a first ammendment problem. But it doesn't restrict private company's behavior at all. Private companies are not required by the first ammendment to give anyone free speech at all. Which is a kind of weird thing in this statement, they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this, or as if private companies should be prevented from limiting speech (in general, that would in fact be the first ammendment problem, to compel the private company to provide a platform! although there are ways around that). But as legally weird or incorrect as I think their reasoning or interpretation of the constitution, I don't know why we would think they wouldn't be "allowed" to express a wrong opinion. Under what grounds do you think someone would have a claim to sue them? Why do you think it would make it to the supreme court? I think you may not have an educated legal basis for that opinion, but you're still allowed to have it and express it!

Ajedi32 5y ago
> they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this What portion of their statement are you referring to? I didn't notice anything in this post suggesting that they're required to support free speech, only that they agree with the underlying principles which inspired that provision in the constitution.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  For instance: > It is not our place, nor should it be the place of any technology company, to interfere with Americans’ civil rights and sit in judgment over their lawful expression. To me suggesting a private company "interferes with Americans civil rights" by deciding what content to publish, suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment obligation. But I'm not really interested in arguing about it.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >...suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment[sic] obligation. Yes. private companies have the obligation to protect their first amendment rights, as part of their obligation to their investors/owners to maximize profit. Claiming that private companies has some sort of obligation to you by allowing you a platform for your speech without interference or moderation assumes that such private entities have no first amendment rights. That's obviously false. If private entities (which you and I and most everyone else) are required to host the speech of others whether they agree with such speech or not, then I can use the same argument for me being able to come over to your house and play gay, furry, midget, scheiser porn on all your screens, project it on the exterior of your house and you have to allow it. If you don't, you're infringing on my first amendment rights. Which is, of course ridiculous on its face. Whether it's a screen in your home or a server in one of Facebook's data centers, the principle is the same.

meerita 5y ago

Anyone should be able to interpret.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

People should, on every occasion, first inquire with the government before exercising their most fundamental rights. It is the only way to ensure that the people maintain the ongoing approval of their government.

coldacid 5y ago
I think you forgot the sarcasm tag at the end there.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  Do you think I was downvoted more by people who disagree with my actual sentiment, or people who couldn’t see I was being sarcastic?
  - coldacid 5y ago
    It's probably 50/50.

vmception 5y ago

Eh their interpretation is fine from my perspective, what everyone around them does to make them ignorable is fine too, and it’s up to Gab to figure out how to be resilient and route around that. Congress trying to figure out what is happening within the country is fine too. It’s a lot of people and businesses and they don’t know.