3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.