5 ms·
Courts have said: Companies are just groups of people. So a person, employed by Twitter, has the same free speech rights as anyone else. If you force a company
by rgbrenner 3y ago
Courts have said: Companies are just groups of people. So a person, employed by Twitter, has the same free speech rights as anyone else. If you force a company to take certain actions, a person in the company must perform that action... and forcing that person to take certain actions may be a violation of that person's rights.
- rhyme-boss 3y agoThat seems logically incoherent (for a court to say). An individual can leave a company if they don't want to take those actions.
- sebzim4500 3y agoI think it would be more logically incoherent if a group of people magically lost their rights because they got together to make a company.
- rhyme-boss 3y agoIt's a voluntary arrangement that they can leave. Certain activities come with responsibilities and restrictions, *in the interest of protecting everyone else's rights.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoNo our constitutional rights are not predicated on our actions or speech having no impact on society. On the contrary our rights are so that we may impact society as we see fit. This is such a dangerous line of thought I almost don’t believe it. Users original comment mentioned impact on society.
- rhyme-boss 3y ago- You give up your first amendment rights when you sign non-disclosure agreements. - You give up your second amendment rights when you enter a school or hospital. - You give up privacy rights when you go through security screenings. - You give up rights to a law suit when you sign a liability release at a climbing gym.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoThis is word for word talking points of the recent NM gov gun deceleration. User also modified his original comment from “impact on society” to nothing to “in the interest of others rights”. Also all word for word with the current blitz on constitutional rights. Interesting
- Jensson 3y ago> This is word for word talking points of the recent NM gov gun deceleration. I was interested and tried to google that word for word, only thing that showed up was this thread. So it isn't word for word the same.
- Caligatio 3y agoShould power companies be allowed to disconnect power (i.e. moderate) to entities that disagree with their ideals? I'm not necessarily arguing X/Twitter is in the same league as a power company but this line of thought has many precedents.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoYes you are right it does. Namely the twitter files! Having this argument after all of the revelations in the twitter files is down right hilarious.
- shadowgovt 3y agoTwitter Files mostly demonstrated a big tech company doing big tech company moderation. It wasn't the bombshell people make it out to be.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoThe twitter files showed that factions in the government were directly requesting individual posts be removed from a private platform. This is highly revelational and currently being litigated with the most recent decision that it was in fact unconstitutional.
- shadowgovt 3y ago> This is highly revelational I guess to anyone who hadn't had experience with moderating a popular social media platform or talked to anyone who has. Was that really so shocking? > it was in fact unconstitutional Nice of the government to step up to the plate and give those of us who've been on the corporate side of this some guidance, for once. Most of what companies get from Congress and the Court is radio silence on the topic (ironically, I suspect, so the government isn't credibly accused of violating a corporation's First Amendment rights by telling them how they can and cannot moderate). So it's nice for the courts to step up and tell companies that the thing the executive said they had to do, no, they don't have to do; that'll be helpful moving forward.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MiguelX413 3y agoSo companies being required to file for taxes and put nutrition facts on their food products violates the rights of certain people within those companies?
- charles_f 3y agoYeah that's the philosophical dilemma here
- rgbrenner 3y agoRe: nutrition facts see the Zauderer test. The Hudson test is related. Here's a flowchart: https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Public-Health-Commercial-Speech-Chart-2018.pdf https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resour... And then you can look up the cases to see the logic behind them.
- woodruffw 3y agoIn particular, the Zauderer test allows the state to compel commercial speech if doing so is "reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of customers[1]." It's obviously up for debate, but I think one could make a strong argument that Twitter's content policies pass this test. (More generally, however: there's lots of compelled commercial speech that doesn't fit into this flowchart. Taxes, commercial permits, leases, etc. I think one could make a strong argument that this law is strictly logistical in nature and represents no more of a 1A risk than Twitter's commercial leases do.) [1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/626/
- gpm 3y agoWould requiring an individual file taxes or disclose nutrition facts on food products they are selling violate their rights? If not, then no...
- fluidcruft 3y agoLet me warm up some popcorn for when Twitter tries to claim they cannot lose their business license because the State has no power to compel them to file their annual report since doing so violates their employee's 1A rights.
- atoav 3y agoSo how do you jail a corporation when they comitted a crime? If you don't they are not a person. If that discrepancy doesn't feel unjust to you should do some soul searching maybe and maybe look at other places where corporation profit from their "personhood" without ever having to experience the negatives of actually being one.