4 ms·

> I think of the platform like a shopping center, once you open it up to the public to enter they can say whatever they want to anybody else in there and nobody

by iamevn 4y ago

> I think of the platform like a shopping center, once you open it up to the public to enter they can say whatever they want to anybody else in there and nobody can determine the subject or viewpoint they are allowed to hold or communicate. People can say what they want and shopping centers are absolutely free to throw people the object to out. Walmart is not a public space. The parking lot of Nordstrom is not a public space. Twitter is not a public space. Why should Walmart be forced to serve someone spouting threats to other customers and staff? Why should Twitter be forced to broadcast users spouting threats and harassment towards their other users and their staff?

destroy-2A 4y ago
In case it was not clear, I agree with you that a shopping center should be able to remove people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. In California at least[1] people are able to peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public. So the shopping center is not able to throw them out. I agree with this ruling and would like to see it applied Federally and to the digital platforms that allow the public to submit their own content. Like I said I am OK to remove content or people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. but otherwise if you open your property or the platform to the public, you let them bring their freedom of expression also. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
- saurik 4y ago
  Oh wow... I mean, many of these platforms operate out of California; maybe this is already applicable? (The issue in the case involved a shopping center but the premise of ruling on "taking" is way more general, and cuts to the core of the arguments people have against forcing people to host something. I have only spent a few seconds glancing at this so far, though.)
  - bcrosby95 4y ago
    I'm not sure any social media companies are running afoul of the Pruneyard decision. It isn't saying that you can say or do whatever you want in a shopping center. However, lots of people like to think "free speech" in the US starts and ends with the 1st amendment. This case shows that it doesn't.

by iamevn 4y ago

destroy-2A 4y ago

In case it was not clear, I agree with you that a shopping center should be able to remove people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. In California at least[1] people are able to peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public. So the shopping center is not able to throw them out. I agree with this ruling and would like to see it applied Federally and to the digital platforms that allow the public to submit their own content. Like I said I am OK to remove content or people who are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing. but otherwise if you open your property or the platform to the public, you let them bring their freedom of expression also. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

saurik 4y ago
Oh wow... I mean, many of these platforms operate out of California; maybe this is already applicable? (The issue in the case involved a shopping center but the premise of ruling on "taking" is way more general, and cuts to the core of the arguments people have against forcing people to host something. I have only spent a few seconds glancing at this so far, though.)
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  I'm not sure any social media companies are running afoul of the Pruneyard decision. It isn't saying that you can say or do whatever you want in a shopping center. However, lots of people like to think "free speech" in the US starts and ends with the 1st amendment. This case shows that it doesn't.