5 ms·

> Texas is trying to blatantly violate the First Amendment (including recent Supreme Court precedent) by outlawing many forms of content moderation on social me

> Texas is trying to blatantly violate the First Amendment (including recent Supreme Court precedent) by outlawing many forms of content moderation on social media sites. Is censorship free speech?

smt88 4y ago
I'm am so, so sick of this legally illiterate line of argument. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit "censorship" on a private platform. It explicitly protects it. The government is forbidden from dictating what a private corporation can choose to broadcast. This is the same protection MSNBC and Fox News have to choose who is in their broadcasts and which comments are deleted from their sites. The Constitution protects us (a groups of us, such as corporations) from the government mandating our own speech, which is what Texas is trying to do. It does not protect us from publishers and platforms choosing not to carry our message.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > I'm am so, so sick of this legally illiterate line of argument. Well, then I guess it's fair for me to complain about being tired of arrogance and straw mans. > The First Amendment doesn't prohibit "censorship" on a private platform. But that's exactly the question. Does the first amendment protect private censorship by social media platforms as a form of "speech"? Or the federal government and the states are free to legislate against it? > This is the same protection MSNBC and Fox News have to choose who is in their broadcasts and which comments are deleted from their sites. That's a disingenuous comparison. No one seriously thinks that everything that is published on Twitter is Twitter's opinion, or is in anyway endorsed by them. The same is not true about news outlets. They have an editorial stance.
  - vinyl7 4y ago
    > The same is not true about news outlets. They have an editorial stance. Was Twitter/Facebook considered editorializing user content when they started adding "Fact checkers say this is false" to posts?
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >The First Amendment doesn't prohibit "censorship" on a private platform. It explicitly protects it. Does that mean common carriers are allowed to censor speech?
  - krapp 4y ago
    Social media platforms are not common carriers.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      They are private companies though. If we already established a precedence for removing 1A rights on one type of private business then we can do it on others as well. (I am not suggesting we should do it, just that we can).
Zigurd 4y ago
Money is speech. So why not?
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  I'm assuming that you are referring to Citizens United v. FEC [1]. That was a controversial decision. I kinda disagree with framing it as "money is speech" though. It's more like "the First Amendment also applies to large faceless associations of individuals (i.e. corporations)".That has to be true at some level, otherwise the government could fetter the press. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

> Texas is trying to blatantly violate the First Amendment (including recent Supreme Court precedent) by outlawing many forms of content moderation on social media sites. Is censorship free speech?

smt88 4y ago

I'm am so, so sick of this legally illiterate line of argument. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit "censorship" on a private platform. It explicitly protects it. The government is forbidden from dictating what a private corporation can choose to broadcast. This is the same protection MSNBC and Fox News have to choose who is in their broadcasts and which comments are deleted from their sites. The Constitution protects us (a groups of us, such as corporations) from the government mandating our own speech, which is what Texas is trying to do. It does not protect us from publishers and platforms choosing not to carry our message.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> I'm am so, so sick of this legally illiterate line of argument. Well, then I guess it's fair for me to complain about being tired of arrogance and straw mans. > The First Amendment doesn't prohibit "censorship" on a private platform. But that's exactly the question. Does the first amendment protect private censorship by social media platforms as a form of "speech"? Or the federal government and the states are free to legislate against it? > This is the same protection MSNBC and Fox News have to choose who is in their broadcasts and which comments are deleted from their sites. That's a disingenuous comparison. No one seriously thinks that everything that is published on Twitter is Twitter's opinion, or is in anyway endorsed by them. The same is not true about news outlets. They have an editorial stance.
- vinyl7 4y ago
  > The same is not true about news outlets. They have an editorial stance. Was Twitter/Facebook considered editorializing user content when they started adding "Fact checkers say this is false" to posts?
_-david-_ 4y ago
>The First Amendment doesn't prohibit "censorship" on a private platform. It explicitly protects it. Does that mean common carriers are allowed to censor speech?
- krapp 4y ago
  Social media platforms are not common carriers.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    They are private companies though. If we already established a precedence for removing 1A rights on one type of private business then we can do it on others as well. (I am not suggesting we should do it, just that we can).

Zigurd 4y ago

Money is speech. So why not?

cato_the_elder 4y ago
I'm assuming that you are referring to Citizens United v. FEC [1]. That was a controversial decision. I kinda disagree with framing it as "money is speech" though. It's more like "the First Amendment also applies to large faceless associations of individuals (i.e. corporations)".That has to be true at some level, otherwise the government could fetter the press. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC