7 ms·

Uh... because that's literally what the First Amendment says? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exerc

Uh... because that's literally what the First Amendment says? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 14th amendment later extended this to apply to state governments as well - but still only governments.

dylan604 3y ago
But a social platform can very much violate someone's first amendment rights. Which is what all of this hubbub is about. So we're saying that because we've said specifically gov't can't, we then now have to go back and make a law that says "neither than corporations, other citizens, and any other party" kind of legally worded something?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- solardev 3y ago
  There might be a misunderstanding here? The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) specifically applies to limiting the powers of the federal government. It doesn't grant rights to individuals, it takes away powers from Congress. It doesn't protect you against other citizens, but against government overreach. A company can't violate someone's free speech (or other rights) because it's not the government. It literally isn't under the purview of the amendments. If it does something illegal, that is become that act is made illegal under some other code, not because of the bill of rights. They can be prosecuted for criminal or civil violations, but it wouldn't be a constitutional issue unless the government is the one doing it. If a social media site wants to silence you, too bad. If the government wants to silence you, that's a big deal. https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-first-amendment-protections-exist-for-speech-on-social-media/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights (Edit: However, your argument isn't unheard of. Here's one opinion from the American Bar Association arguing the same thing -- that the 1A ought to apply to privately run public forums too: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...)
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  We'd have to make that law if we wanted to put that constraint on corporate speech, yes. The fact government can't kick you out of the public square for questioning government doesn't mean I, a homeowner, can't kick you out of my living room for questioning my taste in home decoration (or that Altria, a cigarette company, can't remove you from their property for yelling to all and sundry in their lobby that cigarettes cause cancer, even if it's true). It's not clear such a law is wise. ¿Cui bono? for tying private forum's hands against kicking Nazis, white supremacists, nation of Islam, Patriot Front, Proud Boys, etc. off their website?
  - mindslight 3y ago
    The fundamental problem is the US's negative framing of rights. A negative framing that is only in terms of the de jure government, to avoid logical contradiction. This leads to the perverse winner-take-all argument that corporate censorship is itself protected corporate speech. A positive framing of the right to free speech would allow for a logically-imperfect yet equitable balance between the interests of individuals' speech and corporate speech.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      In general, the corporate liberty to choose who to signal boost and what signal to drop isn't even a speech question; it's a freedom-of-the-press or freedom-of-association question. The fact someone said something to me (or to a company) compels neither of us to repeat it like a parrot. Similarly, the things I post here are not my own and dang can decide to drop this whole post (or the whole thread) if he wants; the fact I run a Mastodon node doesn't imply I have to peer to anyone, de-peer from anyone, or allow anyone's scribblings to traverse my node, &c. The Internet is a network; communication on a network implies (at least) bipartite agreement. Either side of the conversation has veto over the signal.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        Your comment is just describing the winner-take-all negative framing environment in a more colorful manner, while willfully ignoring where the abstraction falls apart. For example leaning on the idea that communication requires a "bipartite" agreement is a bit rich when the sheer majority of web communication involves at least three parties. FWIW you can apply your argument to an ISP to make the argument that it's right for them to arbitrarily censor as well.

dylan604 3y ago

But a social platform can very much violate someone's first amendment rights. Which is what all of this hubbub is about. So we're saying that because we've said specifically gov't can't, we then now have to go back and make a law that says "neither than corporations, other citizens, and any other party" kind of legally worded something?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
solardev 3y ago
There might be a misunderstanding here? The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) specifically applies to limiting the powers of the federal government. It doesn't grant rights to individuals, it takes away powers from Congress. It doesn't protect you against other citizens, but against government overreach. A company can't violate someone's free speech (or other rights) because it's not the government. It literally isn't under the purview of the amendments. If it does something illegal, that is become that act is made illegal under some other code, not because of the bill of rights. They can be prosecuted for criminal or civil violations, but it wouldn't be a constitutional issue unless the government is the one doing it. If a social media site wants to silence you, too bad. If the government wants to silence you, that's a big deal. https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-first-amendment-protections-exist-for-speech-on-social-media/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights (Edit: However, your argument isn't unheard of. Here's one opinion from the American Bar Association arguing the same thing -- that the 1A ought to apply to privately run public forums too: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...)
shadowgovt 3y ago
We'd have to make that law if we wanted to put that constraint on corporate speech, yes. The fact government can't kick you out of the public square for questioning government doesn't mean I, a homeowner, can't kick you out of my living room for questioning my taste in home decoration (or that Altria, a cigarette company, can't remove you from their property for yelling to all and sundry in their lobby that cigarettes cause cancer, even if it's true). It's not clear such a law is wise. ¿Cui bono? for tying private forum's hands against kicking Nazis, white supremacists, nation of Islam, Patriot Front, Proud Boys, etc. off their website?
- mindslight 3y ago
  The fundamental problem is the US's negative framing of rights. A negative framing that is only in terms of the de jure government, to avoid logical contradiction. This leads to the perverse winner-take-all argument that corporate censorship is itself protected corporate speech. A positive framing of the right to free speech would allow for a logically-imperfect yet equitable balance between the interests of individuals' speech and corporate speech.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    In general, the corporate liberty to choose who to signal boost and what signal to drop isn't even a speech question; it's a freedom-of-the-press or freedom-of-association question. The fact someone said something to me (or to a company) compels neither of us to repeat it like a parrot. Similarly, the things I post here are not my own and dang can decide to drop this whole post (or the whole thread) if he wants; the fact I run a Mastodon node doesn't imply I have to peer to anyone, de-peer from anyone, or allow anyone's scribblings to traverse my node, &c. The Internet is a network; communication on a network implies (at least) bipartite agreement. Either side of the conversation has veto over the signal.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Your comment is just describing the winner-take-all negative framing environment in a more colorful manner, while willfully ignoring where the abstraction falls apart. For example leaning on the idea that communication requires a "bipartite" agreement is a bit rich when the sheer majority of web communication involves at least three parties. FWIW you can apply your argument to an ISP to make the argument that it's right for them to arbitrarily censor as well.