7 ms·

The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop. Between people and people, corporations and corporations, and corporat

The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop. Between people and people, corporations and corporations, and corporations and people it does nothing. The opinion fails at this very basic fact because they want it to be false. Not because there's any law suggesting it is false, nor has there been in a hundred years, but because they dont like it they just decided to make it up. The states do not get to change this. If you want something else pass an amendment, don't try to get a bunch of crazy unqualified judges to make a mess.

eduction 4y ago
> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop. Even setting aside this opinion, this is false, at least according to the Supreme Court. See the PruneYard case that this court repeatedly cites https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....
- sangreal 4y ago
  That decision does not dispute what you quoted at all. That case is not even about the first amendment, it is based on California’s state constitution. In fact your link makes the exact claim as the one you say is false. > the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech
  - eduction 4y ago
    Touché! But the bit I quoted is something of a non sequitur as this case, like PruneYard, concerns a state law extending additional speech protections into the private sector, so PruneYard does seem relevant, as PruneYard affirmed a state’s ability to do this. Further, it doesn’t seem much rebuttal of this ruling about a state law to argue the First Amendment offers no protection to those censored by Facebook (as the part I quoted was doing). The First Amendment enters the case in terms of whether it protects Facebook from this law, not whether it protects users from censorship corporate censorship.
Consultant32452 4y ago
What personal consequences do you think should come to federal officials who explicitly requested social media companies to censor specific people and certain categories of speech?
netheril96 4y ago
> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Which is why Texas has to pass a regular law to protect us from the corporation, as the Constitution fails at that.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. > Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.

eduction 4y ago

> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Full stop. Even setting aside this opinion, this is false, at least according to the Supreme Court. See the PruneYard case that this court repeatedly cites https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

sangreal 4y ago
That decision does not dispute what you quoted at all. That case is not even about the first amendment, it is based on California’s state constitution. In fact your link makes the exact claim as the one you say is false. > the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech
- eduction 4y ago
  Touché! But the bit I quoted is something of a non sequitur as this case, like PruneYard, concerns a state law extending additional speech protections into the private sector, so PruneYard does seem relevant, as PruneYard affirmed a state’s ability to do this. Further, it doesn’t seem much rebuttal of this ruling about a state law to argue the First Amendment offers no protection to those censored by Facebook (as the part I quoted was doing). The First Amendment enters the case in terms of whether it protects Facebook from this law, not whether it protects users from censorship corporate censorship.

Consultant32452 4y ago

What personal consequences do you think should come to federal officials who explicitly requested social media companies to censor specific people and certain categories of speech?

netheril96 4y ago

> The first amendment does not protect you against anything but the government. Which is why Texas has to pass a regular law to protect us from the corporation, as the Constitution fails at that.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. > Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.