3 ms·

> a common carrier can't tell what they're transporting They can tell what they're transporting, they're just not allowed to. Telephone operators could wiretap

> a common carrier can't tell what they're transporting They can tell what they're transporting, they're just not allowed to. Telephone operators could wiretap you (and use speech recognition to censor), ISPs could monitor unencrypted data, and even for encrypted data, monitor metadata like which server you connect to. Even FedEx could x-ray packages, or use drug sniffers. Anyway, you claimed this law violated previous precedents, but you've only responded about how it's different from previous precedents. Sure there are some differences, but how are those differences material to the question of whether governments are allowed to regulate "fair" or universal access to communications tech?

joshuamorton 4y ago
> monitor metadata like which server you connect to Common carriers have to do this (they have to know who you're connecting to or shipping to etc.). > Anyway, you claimed this law violated previous precedents, but you've only responded about how it's different from previous precedents. No, I said the ruling violated previous precedents, which is obvious, up until today (and in other circuits), the very clear and obvious precedent was that the 1st amendment covered corporations. The first line of this ruling contradicts that.[0] "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say" is a fundamental misreading of the constitution, and flies in the face of first amendment precedent. This ruling isn't about the government's particular ability to regulate particular industries, it's "corporations aren't protected by the constitution". [0]: Aside, yes the law is also bad and likely is unconstitutional for much the same reason, but that's not the argument I was putting forward.
- leereeves 4y ago
  The court isn't arguing that the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations, it's arguing that censorship isn't speech. The core is: "[there is no] freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say". And that is completely consistent with precedent that the First Amendment actually protects people from censorship. The companies are using the twisted logic that there is a first amendment right to restrict free speech.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    > And that is completely consistent with precedent that the First Amendment actually protects people from censorship. This is not the precedent! The first amendment absolutely allows citizens to engage in editorialization and "censorship". The first amendment protects you from the government! And it gives me the right to assembly, including assembly with others in the form of a joint business venture! And if I assemble with others, very importantly: I don't lose my constitutional rights. Because even when I am assembled, I am protected from government overreach. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from me, and it never has. The Bill of Rights does not protect you from censorship, and it never has. The Bill of Rights does precisely one thing: it protects you, and me, from the government and government overreach. And the government preventing me from speaking against you is government censorship of me. Like, the ACLU, EFF, and Cato Institute all filed amicus briefs supporting NetChoice (previously when the even dumber part of this ruling was before the Supreme Court). Edit in response to the below: no, social media sites aren't common carriers, and you've already admitted that your whole fairness doctrine schtick is a stretch, since the internet's infrastructure isn't licensed by the government (and of course, it cannot be: I don't need a license to upload things!) Treating point-to-point social media, such as instant messaging, like a common carrier might make sense, but a reddit comment or a tweet don't resemble what common carriers carry or how common carriers work. They don't have a destination. It's also, of course, important to note that there is no constitutional right to ship goods, so while it may be reasonable to regulate such industries, regulating a company whose product is speech is much more tenuous, so while the government can absolutely do common carrier things to a shipping company, it is enjoined, by the constitution, from making a speech company a common carrier. Edit again: Phone companies don't produce speech. I cannot hear what you say on the phone. I can see what you tweet. You might rephrase it as publishing vs. messaging. The regulations on a company whose product is publishing cannot be treated the same way as anything else (cue irrelevant arguing about a misunderstanding of section 230). Reddit and twitter and such allow me to publish what I say. T-mobile ships what I say. Common carrier regulations apply only to shipping companies, not publishing companies.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      The only reason the First Amendment is in this discussion at all is because the companies are claiming that the First Amendment forbids laws like this, which is clearly false, since such laws have existed for a long time (as mentioned above). I didn't mean to imply that the First Amendment forbids private censorship (other laws do that). What I meant was, the First Amendment protects people from censorship, when it applies. It's perverse logic to claim that an amendment that prevents government censorship really means that there's a right to censor. And everything about corporations is an irrelevant distraction; the law would also apply to an individual who owned and operated a social media network entirely by themselves as a sole proprietor. Edit in response to edit: > you've already admitted that your whole fairness doctrine schtick is a stretch No, I admitted that there are some differences. The essential argument, that the First Amendment does not forbid such laws, remains relevant. > social media sites aren't common carriers They are if the government says they are, as recently happened to ISPs. This law doesn't exactly do that, but it has similar effect, and that's relevant because it shows that laws with this effect are constitutional. > [the government] is enjoined, by the constitution, from making a speech company a common carrier. Phone companies transmit speech, and are considered common carriers. Edit again: Whether the communications tech is one to one or one to many, the speech is still the speech of the person communicating, not the tech company. Any free speech rights belong to the writer, not the company that owns the wires or software involved in transmission. Publishers are something different entirely. Their core business is content creation, not operating the printing press or website. They pay their writers and tell them what to write about. They own the content they publish. And yes, they are responsible for what they publish.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Even FedEx could x-ray packages, or use drug sniffers. You're forgetting the much easier, and historically important, method of simply opening the packages and looking inside.

joshuamorton 4y ago

> monitor metadata like which server you connect to Common carriers have to do this (they have to know who you're connecting to or shipping to etc.). > Anyway, you claimed this law violated previous precedents, but you've only responded about how it's different from previous precedents. No, I said the ruling violated previous precedents, which is obvious, up until today (and in other circuits), the very clear and obvious precedent was that the 1st amendment covered corporations. The first line of this ruling contradicts that.[0] "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say" is a fundamental misreading of the constitution, and flies in the face of first amendment precedent. This ruling isn't about the government's particular ability to regulate particular industries, it's "corporations aren't protected by the constitution". [0]: Aside, yes the law is also bad and likely is unconstitutional for much the same reason, but that's not the argument I was putting forward.

leereeves 4y ago
The court isn't arguing that the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations, it's arguing that censorship isn't speech. The core is: "[there is no] freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say". And that is completely consistent with precedent that the First Amendment actually protects people from censorship. The companies are using the twisted logic that there is a first amendment right to restrict free speech.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > And that is completely consistent with precedent that the First Amendment actually protects people from censorship. This is not the precedent! The first amendment absolutely allows citizens to engage in editorialization and "censorship". The first amendment protects you from the government! And it gives me the right to assembly, including assembly with others in the form of a joint business venture! And if I assemble with others, very importantly: I don't lose my constitutional rights. Because even when I am assembled, I am protected from government overreach. The Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from me, and it never has. The Bill of Rights does not protect you from censorship, and it never has. The Bill of Rights does precisely one thing: it protects you, and me, from the government and government overreach. And the government preventing me from speaking against you is government censorship of me. Like, the ACLU, EFF, and Cato Institute all filed amicus briefs supporting NetChoice (previously when the even dumber part of this ruling was before the Supreme Court). Edit in response to the below: no, social media sites aren't common carriers, and you've already admitted that your whole fairness doctrine schtick is a stretch, since the internet's infrastructure isn't licensed by the government (and of course, it cannot be: I don't need a license to upload things!) Treating point-to-point social media, such as instant messaging, like a common carrier might make sense, but a reddit comment or a tweet don't resemble what common carriers carry or how common carriers work. They don't have a destination. It's also, of course, important to note that there is no constitutional right to ship goods, so while it may be reasonable to regulate such industries, regulating a company whose product is speech is much more tenuous, so while the government can absolutely do common carrier things to a shipping company, it is enjoined, by the constitution, from making a speech company a common carrier. Edit again: Phone companies don't produce speech. I cannot hear what you say on the phone. I can see what you tweet. You might rephrase it as publishing vs. messaging. The regulations on a company whose product is publishing cannot be treated the same way as anything else (cue irrelevant arguing about a misunderstanding of section 230). Reddit and twitter and such allow me to publish what I say. T-mobile ships what I say. Common carrier regulations apply only to shipping companies, not publishing companies.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    The only reason the First Amendment is in this discussion at all is because the companies are claiming that the First Amendment forbids laws like this, which is clearly false, since such laws have existed for a long time (as mentioned above). I didn't mean to imply that the First Amendment forbids private censorship (other laws do that). What I meant was, the First Amendment protects people from censorship, when it applies. It's perverse logic to claim that an amendment that prevents government censorship really means that there's a right to censor. And everything about corporations is an irrelevant distraction; the law would also apply to an individual who owned and operated a social media network entirely by themselves as a sole proprietor. Edit in response to edit: > you've already admitted that your whole fairness doctrine schtick is a stretch No, I admitted that there are some differences. The essential argument, that the First Amendment does not forbid such laws, remains relevant. > social media sites aren't common carriers They are if the government says they are, as recently happened to ISPs. This law doesn't exactly do that, but it has similar effect, and that's relevant because it shows that laws with this effect are constitutional. > [the government] is enjoined, by the constitution, from making a speech company a common carrier. Phone companies transmit speech, and are considered common carriers. Edit again: Whether the communications tech is one to one or one to many, the speech is still the speech of the person communicating, not the tech company. Any free speech rights belong to the writer, not the company that owns the wires or software involved in transmission. Publishers are something different entirely. Their core business is content creation, not operating the printing press or website. They pay their writers and tell them what to write about. They own the content they publish. And yes, they are responsible for what they publish.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> Even FedEx could x-ray packages, or use drug sniffers. You're forgetting the much easier, and historically important, method of simply opening the packages and looking inside.