5 ms·

Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech. Can't make people listen to your speech. There's no protection against civil (ie, non government

Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech. Can't make people listen to your speech. There's no protection against civil (ie, non governmental) action against your speech. You want freedom, host it your self and be prepared to accept the consequences and gains. Go to Speakers Corner and have a go. Put up a website. Buy a TV/Radio station, or Internet provider.

YeBanKo 4y ago
Twitter became de-facto a part of public square. Especially since appointed and elected officials started using for official and non-official communicate. The US court of appeals said it pretty clearly here: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/4th-circuit-rules-against-virginia-elected-official-who-blocked-constituent-on-facebook/3372/ https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/4th-circui... Censoring individual twits is one thing, but banning entire account is a different thing, because now it restricts your ability to interact with elected officials. Besides, equal time rule demands that TV and radio stations(private and public) give equal time to competing politicians. There are exceptions, but logically it should extend to social media and video hosting sites, because they are today’s version of radio and TV stations. On top of that, I would argue social media became the only mean of public assembly, which is a protected right, during Covid lockdown. Politicians pay attention to twitter, you can’t assemble by the city hall with banners to express your opinion, because you are to stay home. The next closest thing is to swarm twitter and facebook, given how closely they watch trends there.
- noahtallen 4y ago
  As a counterpoint, even in the public square, not all types of speech are allowed. For a frivolous example, many cities have noise ordinances and laws against breaking the public peace. So you get tossed in jail for a night for being a public nuisance. We treat Twitter and Internet forums less seriously, as if someone can say whatever the fuck they want with no consequences at all. That’s not how it works in the public square, so why should it be that way on Twitter?
  - YeBanKo 4y ago
    > That’s not how it works in the public square, so why should it be that way on Twitter? No one seriously suggests that all types of speech are allowed. Malevolently shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech. Noise ordinance have fairly limited scope and in virtual scope is actually fairly easy to deal with. I don't care what Kanye West things and I don't subscribe to him. As for disorderly conduct, it is such a wide net of laws, that it can range from misdemeanor like making loud noises to criminalizing homelessness or some other biased laws, I don't think that even make sense to apply this logic to the virtual space.
- esotericimpl 4y ago
chatterhead 4y ago
Until you get DOS'd to death.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- asdff 4y ago
  Or you can do it the old fashion way. When I was in undergrad, anti abortion people showing graphic imagery and religious fanatics would use the fact that the main quad was a public space to stump their opinions. Most people would ignore them, others would stop to argue with them, but the cops never did anything because legally they could not remove them from a public space for speaking.
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    That happened at my school, too. There was one guy, little bald and always wearing a slightly too big suit, yelling about gays and the immorality of anal sex. Something tells me he fueled more experimentation than if he hadn't been there. "If that killjoy doesn't like something it must be fun!"
LatteLazy 4y ago
>Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech. There is no fundamental reason this is an unchangeable true. A lot of the noise around Section 230 repeal and other laws being passed in places like Texas are designed to alter exactly this norm. Personally I am not sure if I would change it or not, I am just pointing out that it is far from written in stone...
- thedougd 4y ago
  They can try to disincentivize private censorship, but unlikely to stop it. I believe the primary argument is forcing these companies to publish speech is a violation of their own free speech.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Right now section 230 means you can censor without censoring perfectly and not get sued. Repealing it means Facebook are liable for anything posted there IF the censor at all. So Facebook either gives up all censorship (free speech!), or gives up all user driven content (unlikely). That's just civil law, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't cover getting sued for it. Even if it does apply to corporations right to censor...
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case. > At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: >> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
      - LatteLazy 4y ago

YeBanKo 4y ago

Twitter became de-facto a part of public square. Especially since appointed and elected officials started using for official and non-official communicate. The US court of appeals said it pretty clearly here: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/4th-circuit-rules-against-virginia-elected-official-who-blocked-constituent-on-facebook/3372/ https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/4th-circui... Censoring individual twits is one thing, but banning entire account is a different thing, because now it restricts your ability to interact with elected officials. Besides, equal time rule demands that TV and radio stations(private and public) give equal time to competing politicians. There are exceptions, but logically it should extend to social media and video hosting sites, because they are today’s version of radio and TV stations. On top of that, I would argue social media became the only mean of public assembly, which is a protected right, during Covid lockdown. Politicians pay attention to twitter, you can’t assemble by the city hall with banners to express your opinion, because you are to stay home. The next closest thing is to swarm twitter and facebook, given how closely they watch trends there.

noahtallen 4y ago
As a counterpoint, even in the public square, not all types of speech are allowed. For a frivolous example, many cities have noise ordinances and laws against breaking the public peace. So you get tossed in jail for a night for being a public nuisance. We treat Twitter and Internet forums less seriously, as if someone can say whatever the fuck they want with no consequences at all. That’s not how it works in the public square, so why should it be that way on Twitter?
- YeBanKo 4y ago
  > That’s not how it works in the public square, so why should it be that way on Twitter? No one seriously suggests that all types of speech are allowed. Malevolently shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech. Noise ordinance have fairly limited scope and in virtual scope is actually fairly easy to deal with. I don't care what Kanye West things and I don't subscribe to him. As for disorderly conduct, it is such a wide net of laws, that it can range from misdemeanor like making loud noises to criminalizing homelessness or some other biased laws, I don't think that even make sense to apply this logic to the virtual space.
esotericimpl 4y ago

chatterhead 4y ago

Until you get DOS'd to death.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
asdff 4y ago
Or you can do it the old fashion way. When I was in undergrad, anti abortion people showing graphic imagery and religious fanatics would use the fact that the main quad was a public space to stump their opinions. Most people would ignore them, others would stop to argue with them, but the cops never did anything because legally they could not remove them from a public space for speaking.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  That happened at my school, too. There was one guy, little bald and always wearing a slightly too big suit, yelling about gays and the immorality of anal sex. Something tells me he fueled more experimentation than if he hadn't been there. "If that killjoy doesn't like something it must be fun!"

LatteLazy 4y ago

>Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech. There is no fundamental reason this is an unchangeable true. A lot of the noise around Section 230 repeal and other laws being passed in places like Texas are designed to alter exactly this norm. Personally I am not sure if I would change it or not, I am just pointing out that it is far from written in stone...

thedougd 4y ago
They can try to disincentivize private censorship, but unlikely to stop it. I believe the primary argument is forcing these companies to publish speech is a violation of their own free speech.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Right now section 230 means you can censor without censoring perfectly and not get sued. Repealing it means Facebook are liable for anything posted there IF the censor at all. So Facebook either gives up all censorship (free speech!), or gives up all user driven content (unlikely). That's just civil law, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't cover getting sued for it. Even if it does apply to corporations right to censor...
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case. > At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users: >> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
    - LatteLazy 4y ago