3 ms·
"Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government." I agree, however it doesn't
by themitigating 4y ago
"Now logically, this implies an assumption that you can assemble and petition somewhere that will reach others and the government."
I agree, however it doesn't say you have to be able to reach all or even a large percentage of the people, that they have to listen, and the like for the government.
When the first amendment was written if you were to go outside and protest in a public square how many people would hear your speech? As for the government, that's what elections are for. You can also contact your member of congress or send a letter. They ignore you? Don't vote for them.
"It would be silly to say, ok, you're allowed to do this, but only in some isolated room that's sound proof by yourself."
This is an appeal to extremes. Being censored by private companies does not lead to complete isolation of your speech because there are multiple private companies and other ways of expressing yourself.
----------------------------
"If people are now online and on some social media platform, and that's realistically the only place to reach others and the government, "
Why? Whatever method of reaching government prior to social media existing still exist now. Why is it "realistically the only place"?
---------------------------
"Public means:
done, perceived, or existing in open view > ordinary people in general; the community"
This is the definition of the word "public" in the public/private space debate we are talking about "public space" which isn't a word and doesn't have a defitinion in the diction however just a few lines from Wikipedia:
'A public space is a place that is open and accessible to the general public. Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks, and beaches are typically considered public space.'
What a public space is or isn't is debatable. However what isn't is a private space. A business is a private space. A home is a private. Facebook's servers are private property on private space.
If I have an open house (because I'm selling) and invite the public that doesn't mean people can come in and say whatever they want. This is like a public area of Walmart, it's public per the companies rules not the state.
------------------------------
"I think just the fact many people are asking for this can be good enough to consider a reasonable way of making it happen"
The first amendment to the US condition is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say people or businesses can't make rules regulating free speech. You want to change this there is a process to amend the constitution.
Perhaps a quote from Gov Abbott -
"During my time as a judge, as a justice, and as attorney general, I've had one overarching goal, and that is a strict interpretation and application of the laws and the Constitution.
- didibus 4y agoAssume enough people want the government to regulate certain private online communities like Twitter, so that those spaces can be used for 1st amendment purposes. This in my opinion is the strongest justification. This is just democracy at play, a large amount of the populace thinks this is important. If you find a way for everyone to agree on regulation, governments can put in place such regulation. It doesn't even have to be about any constitutional rights. I don't think everyone agrees completely, me as well, I don't want to see these spaces become complete shit-show, full of trolls, bots, duplicate accounts, spam, foreign farm content, etc. This is where I suggest a compromise, I think what I put forward is a good middle of the road, I think it can please both sides, those who want to be free to say whatever they want can, as long as they do so non-anonymously, and after having been fully verified to be a real legal person, have only a single account, and it's not illegal what they are saying. There might need some rules about the speech needing to be in context and not spammy as well, but that can be ironed out later. Similarly, this should also limit the platform from the abuse that could come from just arbitrarily allowing everything and force laissez-faire attitude which would come from just say banning all form of moderation. Now the question is, is there a constitutional issue that would prevent such regulation? So we're flipping the argument now. Nothing I can see in the constitution really protects the right of a private platform to not have the government make laws that can regulate how it manages its platform. So being a private space doesn't really protect them from the people demanding regulation from government and for the government to enforce it on the platform. That means, if we want, we could regulate these spaces so they can be used as an avenue for 1st amendment like petitioning to the government or redress of grievances, without interference from the platform private owning entity. It also means, it's probably not currently illegal for these platforms to do so, since like you said, the constitution doesn't really say that everyone has the right to say anything they want about anything to anyone and anywhere. But also, this isn't really an issue, to me, this case isn't about what the constitution says or is interpreted, it's just about what we as people want for ourselves as laws/policies/regulations. I think this could also be welcomed by the platforms. Currently, the lack of clear rules around moderation often put them in precarious PR scenarios, some amount of agreed on regulation can provide the political stability around their own line of business that could allow them to thrive even more.