4 ms·
The private business argument is weak as you're really pointing to the freedom that businesses employ. Quite obviously censorship runs contrary to the idea of f
by Flankk 5y ago
The private business argument is weak as you're really pointing to the freedom that businesses employ. Quite obviously censorship runs contrary to the idea of freedom and the spirit of the law. Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship, it is only legal currently because social media is a relatively new form of communication. This censorship has clearly been disruptive and since social media is essentially serving the role of a telecommunications provider those laws surrounding their freedoms are likely to change. You have to be careful because just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Social media companies can also read your private messages and share your private photos but that wouldn't make it right.
- Hamuko 5y ago>Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship Facebook and Twitter both enjoy the rights bestowed upon them by the First Amendment to remove content as they see fit. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to host content that they don't want would violate their First Amendment rights.
- Flankk 5y agoThe first amendment has nothing to do with that. The first amendment protects the individual and the press from government censorship. As I said, the spirit of the law is to protect from censorship. Unfortunately social media companies are abusing their power.
- Hamuko 5y agoGo read up on Citizens United v FEC.
- Flankk 5y agoThat is a red herring and has nothing to do with what I said. It is also a highly controversial decision.
- Hamuko 5y ago>has nothing to do with what I said Again, read up on it, because they clearly state that the First Amendment extends to corporations as well, since the First Amendment is is about abridging freedom of speech, not about individual citizens.