3 ms·

Note that the negative framing does not necessarily limit other laws to have an affirmative framing, for example see the Pruneyard case: https://en.wikipedia.o

Note that the negative framing does not necessarily limit other laws to have an affirmative framing, for example see the Pruneyard case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... > This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.[4] The Pruneyard case, therefore, raised the question of whether an implied right of free speech could arise under a state constitution without conflicting with the federal Constitution. In answering yes to that question, the Court rejected the shopping center's argument that California's broader free speech right amounted to a "taking" of the shopping center under federal constitutional law. I generally believe that companies that enter spaces that previously afforded "users" first amendment protection should have similar laws to protect the free speech of users in said privately owned "spaces". But that would require new laws.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> I generally believe that companies that enter spaces that previously afforded "users" first amendment protection should have similar laws to protect the free speech of users in said privately owned "spaces". What spaces are those? From where I sit, we went from BBSes (where the admin controlled the signal) to self-hosting (where the user controlled the signal, unless it was so onerous that an ISP cut service) to cloud-hosting (where a company controls the signal). The ideal free speech world where people just spoke their minds online is a fantasy borne more out of lack of interest to regulate than power to regulate. Remember, the original network was a "network of peers" where most users were not pseudonymous; their academic or military sponsors could cut their access. The network has never had anything like absolute free speech. Communication over the network has always been an affair involving at least two parties who must agree on the transmission of signal.
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  > What spaces are those? Town square. Snail mail. You're thinking very 2020s/technical here.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    In the town square, the government can't remove you but a fellow citizen can just stand there and scream "NOOOOPE!" to everything you say, over and over again. And the local grocer is allowed to turn you away as a result of those things you were screaming in the town square earlier about their daughter. Snail mail is a great example, but the burden of proof is on those who think the Internet should work the same to justify why a model baked into federal Constitutional requirements should be used to justify de facto nationalization of private infrastructure. Now, if somebody wanted to put the tax dollars up for the federal government to build out "the people's Internet," regulated with something akin to first Amendment protections for transiting the network and rights to privacy, I certainly wouldn't be against it.

shadowgovt 3y ago

> I generally believe that companies that enter spaces that previously afforded "users" first amendment protection should have similar laws to protect the free speech of users in said privately owned "spaces". What spaces are those? From where I sit, we went from BBSes (where the admin controlled the signal) to self-hosting (where the user controlled the signal, unless it was so onerous that an ISP cut service) to cloud-hosting (where a company controls the signal). The ideal free speech world where people just spoke their minds online is a fantasy borne more out of lack of interest to regulate than power to regulate. Remember, the original network was a "network of peers" where most users were not pseudonymous; their academic or military sponsors could cut their access. The network has never had anything like absolute free speech. Communication over the network has always been an affair involving at least two parties who must agree on the transmission of signal.

bcrosby95 3y ago
> What spaces are those? Town square. Snail mail. You're thinking very 2020s/technical here.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  In the town square, the government can't remove you but a fellow citizen can just stand there and scream "NOOOOPE!" to everything you say, over and over again. And the local grocer is allowed to turn you away as a result of those things you were screaming in the town square earlier about their daughter. Snail mail is a great example, but the burden of proof is on those who think the Internet should work the same to justify why a model baked into federal Constitutional requirements should be used to justify de facto nationalization of private infrastructure. Now, if somebody wanted to put the tax dollars up for the federal government to build out "the people's Internet," regulated with something akin to first Amendment protections for transiting the network and rights to privacy, I certainly wouldn't be against it.