3 ms·

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

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.

BlueTemplar 4y ago
By "publisher" I would assume there is some editorializing going on that makes the publisher legally liable for what they publish. GAF(AM)s are trying to have freedom of a common carrier with the power of a publisher (see my comment in parallel).
leereeves 4y ago
> I can...refuse to assemble with [meaning doing business with] those I don't want to > I cannot be forced into service of [again meaning doing business with] any particular [party] In many cases you are free to refuse to do business with someone, simply because no law exists against it. But you don't have a right to refuse; the government can pass a law punishing you for refusing; and they have passed many such laws. For example, in many states, you are forbidden to refuse to do business with Israel. And you're forbidden to refuse to do business with people for a variety of reasons called protected characteristics. The list of such characteristics has grown quite long and includes (in some states) political affiliation, belief, or activity. From that standpoint, this law is not unusual at all.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > And you're forbidden to refuse to do business with people for a variety of reasons called protected characteristics. (One of which is, in California, political affiliation.) Due to a constitutional amendment! And even in California, companies are free not to do business without you based on your political beliefs they just can't retaliate against you in the workplace. And of course, the whole discrimination thing only applies if there's not a legitimate non-protected class reason, as we know from masterpiece cake shop. > For example, in many states, you are forbidden to refuse to do business with Israel, and have been for many decades Those laws would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. Actual on the books anti-bds laws are much more limited, usually only banning government contractors from boycotting Israel, and even that much more limited stance may be unconstitutional (see a recent Texas anti-bds law that's currently enjoined by the district court due to it's infringement on a corporations first amendment rights!...https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free-speech-rights-rules_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free-...) There are lots of unconstitutional laws on the books (miscegenation is illegal in a few states, technically), they just can't be enforced, but you aren't doing yourself favors by citing exaggerated, clearly unconstitutional versions of dubiously legal laws as a defense of this one.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    > see a recent Texas anti-bds law that's currently enjoined by the district court due to it's infringement on a corporations first amendment rights!...https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free- https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free-...) That's quite a weak example in which a single low-level judge issued an injunction but "stopped short of fully blocking a state law" and an advocacy group claimed the law was unconstitutional. Anti-BDS laws have existed in many states for quite some time, under many different courts, and not been overturned. So until a SC decision finally finds such laws unconstitutional, I will continue to accept that they are, even though I am strongly against them. > the whole discrimination thing only applies if there's not a legitimate non-protected class reason Protected classes vary by state. In Texas, because of this law, political belief is now effectively a protected class, at least w.r.t social media. As you said, Twitter can still claim "a legitimate non-protected class reason" (like, the account is a bot) for terminating accounts, but can't "discriminate" against political views. The California version forbids retaliation in the workplace, the Texas version forbids retaliation on social media. They aren't so different.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

By "publisher" I would assume there is some editorializing going on that makes the publisher legally liable for what they publish. GAF(AM)s are trying to have freedom of a common carrier with the power of a publisher (see my comment in parallel).

leereeves 4y ago

> I can...refuse to assemble with [meaning doing business with] those I don't want to > I cannot be forced into service of [again meaning doing business with] any particular [party] In many cases you are free to refuse to do business with someone, simply because no law exists against it. But you don't have a right to refuse; the government can pass a law punishing you for refusing; and they have passed many such laws. For example, in many states, you are forbidden to refuse to do business with Israel. And you're forbidden to refuse to do business with people for a variety of reasons called protected characteristics. The list of such characteristics has grown quite long and includes (in some states) political affiliation, belief, or activity. From that standpoint, this law is not unusual at all.

joshuamorton 4y ago
> And you're forbidden to refuse to do business with people for a variety of reasons called protected characteristics. (One of which is, in California, political affiliation.) Due to a constitutional amendment! And even in California, companies are free not to do business without you based on your political beliefs they just can't retaliate against you in the workplace. And of course, the whole discrimination thing only applies if there's not a legitimate non-protected class reason, as we know from masterpiece cake shop. > For example, in many states, you are forbidden to refuse to do business with Israel, and have been for many decades Those laws would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. Actual on the books anti-bds laws are much more limited, usually only banning government contractors from boycotting Israel, and even that much more limited stance may be unconstitutional (see a recent Texas anti-bds law that's currently enjoined by the district court due to it's infringement on a corporations first amendment rights!...https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free-speech-rights-rules_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free-...) There are lots of unconstitutional laws on the books (miscegenation is illegal in a few states, technically), they just can't be enforced, but you aren't doing yourself favors by citing exaggerated, clearly unconstitutional versions of dubiously legal laws as a defense of this one.
- leereeves 4y ago
  > see a recent Texas anti-bds law that's currently enjoined by the district court due to it's infringement on a corporations first amendment rights!...https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free- https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/anti-bds-law-in-texas-free-...) That's quite a weak example in which a single low-level judge issued an injunction but "stopped short of fully blocking a state law" and an advocacy group claimed the law was unconstitutional. Anti-BDS laws have existed in many states for quite some time, under many different courts, and not been overturned. So until a SC decision finally finds such laws unconstitutional, I will continue to accept that they are, even though I am strongly against them. > the whole discrimination thing only applies if there's not a legitimate non-protected class reason Protected classes vary by state. In Texas, because of this law, political belief is now effectively a protected class, at least w.r.t social media. As you said, Twitter can still claim "a legitimate non-protected class reason" (like, the account is a bot) for terminating accounts, but can't "discriminate" against political views. The California version forbids retaliation in the workplace, the Texas version forbids retaliation on social media. They aren't so different.