3 ms·

> And that is completely consistent with precedent that the First Amendment actually protects people from censorship. This is not the precedent! The first amen

> 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.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  Publishers were historically (and still are!) literally the people who owned the presses, lol. Like you went to a publisher to get your manuscript printed. All the other things, like editing and marketing were secondary to these were the people who could actually mass produce your book. The NYT and WaPo own their presses. The core business of a publisher, historically, has been the facilitation of scalable access to content created by other people. Even newspapers don't really "tell them what to write about", they hire (or use freelancers!) people who work on their own stories and submit them to the paper. And while newspapers do usually own the content they publish, they don't always, and book publishing houses rarely do. So the WaPo's and HarperCollins's of the world are a lot more like the YouTube's and Reddit's than you seem to think. And yes, the individuals who write the articles have first amendment (not "free speech", nobody in the US has a "free speech" right, that isn't a thing) rights. But so too do the Washington Post, and Penguin RandomHouse. And even though lots of people have had OpEd's in the NYT, and even though Hachette has published books by tons of authors, they're under no requirement to publish my works, because they fully and totally have the right to not enter into a relationship with me, and have the right to not assist me in broadcasting my content. And the first amendment protects their right to associate with and how they want to, and that includes not associating with me. I want to emphasize this by the way, because earlier you said > it's arguing that censorship isn't speech And this fundamentally doesn't matter, because the first amendment protects a number of things that aren't speech, including assembly. I can assemble with whom I want to (and also refuse to assemble with those I don't want to). I cannot be forced into service of any particular individual, and this is true for common carriers, they're not in service of an individual, but of an item. As soon as the thing you're doing is promoting an individual's words or brand, you're not doing what a common carrier is doing. Shipping a box is exactly the same whether it is your box or Donald Trump's box. But broadcasting a speech on my loudspeaker isn't the same if its your speech or Donald Trump's. As much as you wish it to be, you cannot make those two situations the same.

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.

joshuamorton 4y ago
Publishers were historically (and still are!) literally the people who owned the presses, lol. Like you went to a publisher to get your manuscript printed. All the other things, like editing and marketing were secondary to these were the people who could actually mass produce your book. The NYT and WaPo own their presses. The core business of a publisher, historically, has been the facilitation of scalable access to content created by other people. Even newspapers don't really "tell them what to write about", they hire (or use freelancers!) people who work on their own stories and submit them to the paper. And while newspapers do usually own the content they publish, they don't always, and book publishing houses rarely do. So the WaPo's and HarperCollins's of the world are a lot more like the YouTube's and Reddit's than you seem to think. And yes, the individuals who write the articles have first amendment (not "free speech", nobody in the US has a "free speech" right, that isn't a thing) rights. But so too do the Washington Post, and Penguin RandomHouse. And even though lots of people have had OpEd's in the NYT, and even though Hachette has published books by tons of authors, they're under no requirement to publish my works, because they fully and totally have the right to not enter into a relationship with me, and have the right to not assist me in broadcasting my content. And the first amendment protects their right to associate with and how they want to, and that includes not associating with me. I want to emphasize this by the way, because earlier you said > it's arguing that censorship isn't speech And this fundamentally doesn't matter, because the first amendment protects a number of things that aren't speech, including assembly. I can assemble with whom I want to (and also refuse to assemble with those I don't want to). I cannot be forced into service of any particular individual, and this is true for common carriers, they're not in service of an individual, but of an item. As soon as the thing you're doing is promoting an individual's words or brand, you're not doing what a common carrier is doing. Shipping a box is exactly the same whether it is your box or Donald Trump's box. But broadcasting a speech on my loudspeaker isn't the same if its your speech or Donald Trump's. As much as you wish it to be, you cannot make those two situations the same.