9 ms·

The consequences of this law aren’t very clear, especially in the post Citizens United world where scotus has established that corporations have first amendment

The consequences of this law aren’t very clear, especially in the post Citizens United world where scotus has established that corporations have first amendment rights that are protected by constitution. Now, if a corporation is in some sense required to carry someone’s message due to some law, that gets into (arguably) the realm of forced speech. Don’t get me wrong, I think Citzens United is a horrible ruling, and this whole fiasco just further shows the “rules for thee but not for me” doctrine the Republican Party has been operating for the past 25 odd years.

leereeves 4y ago
It's been done before. See: the Fairness Doctrine for TV, or common carrier laws for phones.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Broadcast TV was using public airwaves. That never applied to cable or satellite TV.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    And the Internet was created by the US government, so it's also a public resource. Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing? Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The internet may have been “created” by the federal government. But most of the investment and infrastructure is very much done by private companies. If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one. Actually, it seems like they can create these laws, that have been upheld by the court system as being completely legal. And then if social media companies break these completely legal laws, then they will be massively fined and ordered by the court to change.
        scarface74 4y ago
        They can also force a 11 year old to have a baby after she has been raped and leave a pregnant lady bleeding because the doctor is afraid to terminate the pregnancy. That doesn’t mean it’s right…
        thrown_22 4y ago
        It's truly bizarre to see liberals argue that corporation have a right not to be raped, ergo we must let them decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
        scarface74 4y ago
        We are not forced to use Twitter or Facebook. If Truth Social is more your speed, go for it.
        leereeves 4y ago
        There are many reasons why that won't work for a lot of people: What if friends who have a variety of opinions just want to be able to communicate with each other? Or what if someone wants to hear all the facts without censorship? Maybe the Hunter Biden's laptop story was true, but you wouldn't hear that on Twitter. Maybe Trump was very wrong about Invermectin, but you wouldn't hear that on Truth Social. What if someone believes that open debate is better for democracy than a few alternative echo chambers?
        4y ago
    - scarface74 4y ago
      To your edit: broadcast TV wasn’t under FCC jurisdiction because they paid to broadcast. The public over the air spectrum are considered to be owned by the government and licensed to the broadcast networks
      - leereeves 4y ago
        I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and social media are tools for person to person communication.
        scarface74 4y ago
        The cell network also operates by having a license to the spectrum to the public airways and spectrum suitable for cellular service is limited because of physics and therefore is a natural monopoly. There is no such limitation in someone setting up servers and connecting it to the internet and creating an alternate social media platform. Are there not enough conservatives with the finances and knowledge to create a Twitter alternative? I’ll gladly over charge them and lead the effort if they pay enough. Leading infrastructure and back end development is kind of my thing.
        leereeves 4y ago
        I'm not talking about cell networks. Common carrier also applied to POTS (i.e., copper wire), a system that (unlike the airwaves) was built entirely by private companies. And once again, it's not about having alternative walled gardens (which already exist). It's about promoting open debate on all platforms. What's wrong with that? If censorship is the only way your ideas can win, your ideas suck. Incidentally, this also protects the far left if Elon Musk ends up buying Twitter.
        scarface74 4y ago
        If the government wants to provide a place for open debate, it is free to create a taxpayer funded service to do so. If a Christian organization sets up social media website, should it be forced to host a forum to allow open debate about the existence of God? Again, conservatives love “limited government” and the free markets until neither work in their favor. Truth Social is an existence proof that the free market is working as it should.

leereeves 4y ago

It's been done before. See: the Fairness Doctrine for TV, or common carrier laws for phones.

scarface74 4y ago
Broadcast TV was using public airwaves. That never applied to cable or satellite TV.
- leereeves 4y ago
  And the Internet was created by the US government, so it's also a public resource. Ok, it's been privatized, but can the government abdicate it's responsibility to protect freedom of speech by privatizing? Edit because I'm "posting too fast": Paying for most of the infrastructure didn't make TV stations or phone companies exempt from similar regulation. I don't see why it would make social networks exempt.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    The internet may have been “created” by the federal government. But most of the investment and infrastructure is very much done by private companies. If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > If the government of Texas wants a free for all social platform, they can create one. Actually, it seems like they can create these laws, that have been upheld by the court system as being completely legal. And then if social media companies break these completely legal laws, then they will be massively fined and ordered by the court to change.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        They can also force a 11 year old to have a baby after she has been raped and leave a pregnant lady bleeding because the doctor is afraid to terminate the pregnancy. That doesn’t mean it’s right…
        thrown_22 4y ago
        It's truly bizarre to see liberals argue that corporation have a right not to be raped, ergo we must let them decide what is and isn't acceptable speech.
        scarface74 4y ago
        We are not forced to use Twitter or Facebook. If Truth Social is more your speed, go for it.
        leereeves 4y ago
        There are many reasons why that won't work for a lot of people: What if friends who have a variety of opinions just want to be able to communicate with each other? Or what if someone wants to hear all the facts without censorship? Maybe the Hunter Biden's laptop story was true, but you wouldn't hear that on Twitter. Maybe Trump was very wrong about Invermectin, but you wouldn't hear that on Truth Social. What if someone believes that open debate is better for democracy than a few alternative echo chambers?
        4y ago
  - scarface74 4y ago
    To your edit: broadcast TV wasn’t under FCC jurisdiction because they paid to broadcast. The public over the air spectrum are considered to be owned by the government and licensed to the broadcast networks
    - leereeves 4y ago
      I agree it's not an exact match for many reasons (including because TV didn't let many people broadcast). Phones are a much closer precedent - both phones and social media are tools for person to person communication.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        The cell network also operates by having a license to the spectrum to the public airways and spectrum suitable for cellular service is limited because of physics and therefore is a natural monopoly. There is no such limitation in someone setting up servers and connecting it to the internet and creating an alternate social media platform. Are there not enough conservatives with the finances and knowledge to create a Twitter alternative? I’ll gladly over charge them and lead the effort if they pay enough. Leading infrastructure and back end development is kind of my thing.
        leereeves 4y ago
        I'm not talking about cell networks. Common carrier also applied to POTS (i.e., copper wire), a system that (unlike the airwaves) was built entirely by private companies. And once again, it's not about having alternative walled gardens (which already exist). It's about promoting open debate on all platforms. What's wrong with that? If censorship is the only way your ideas can win, your ideas suck. Incidentally, this also protects the far left if Elon Musk ends up buying Twitter.
        scarface74 4y ago
        If the government wants to provide a place for open debate, it is free to create a taxpayer funded service to do so. If a Christian organization sets up social media website, should it be forced to host a forum to allow open debate about the existence of God? Again, conservatives love “limited government” and the free markets until neither work in their favor. Truth Social is an existence proof that the free market is working as it should.