7 ms·

> This isn't the First Amendment, since it's just a ban based on identity instead of posting content. This is not why the First Amendment does not apply. The F

> This isn't the First Amendment, since it's just a ban based on identity instead of posting content. This is not why the First Amendment does not apply. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. It restricts the government… > 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. At least from a First Amendment standpoint, Reddit can do what it feels like to establish a religion, ban all religious discussion, tell reporters to go to hell, start a news feed, etc. There are other laws they do need to deal with of course. More commentary on this here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-explainer-2021-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-expl...

jjmarr 2y ago
I agreed with you. If Reddit wanted to ban certain types of posts, they're entitled to under the First Amendment. They're not entitled to discriminate against certain races, ethnicities, or religions though. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/
- riskable 2y ago
  They most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on religion. The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could potentially discriminate against their employees (or in hiring) based on their religion: https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination There's no law that says you can't say, run a website that only allows atheists to participate, or non-Jews, or non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or whatever religion or religious classification that you want. Discriminating based on race or ethnicity is a different topic entirely. You can choose your religion (it's like, just your opinion, man) but you can't choose your race/ethnicity. There's much more complicated laws in that area.
  - pc86 2y ago
    There absolutely is such a law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title II. If you provide public accommodations you may not discriminate based on religion. You can't stick a "No Muslims allowed" sign on your restaurant because it's open to the public. Reddit is publicly available even if they require registration, and neither Reddit nor subreddit mods may legally discriminate based on anything covered under the CRA. https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public...
    - riskable 2y ago
      The CRA only covers physical spaces (places of "public accommodation"). Not services (like Reddit).
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        My understanding is that businesses cannot deny service based on protected class. E.g. Reddit couldn't put "Catholics are barred from using Reddit" in their TOS. But subreddit bans are done by users of Reddit, not by Reddit itself. If someone on Xbox Live mutes the chat of Catholics and kicks them from the lobbies they're hosting, you can't go complain to Microsoft because these are the actions of a user not the company.
      - pc86 2y ago
        Websites are public accommodations, this has been litigated over and over and over again. That why you can sue the owner of a website over ADA violations if they offer services or products to the public. I don't know why you keep doubling down when you're verifiably, provably wrong. I understand you may not want this to be the case, but it is.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - 2y ago
- Moto7451 2y ago
  None of this has to do with the First Amendment including the legal review you linked to. The Unruh Civil Rights Act that is discussed does not extend the First Amendment as the First Amendment does not restrict the actions of businesses. The Unruh Civil Rights Act does not extend the First Amendment as it does not restrict the actions of Congress or other legislatures. Freedom of Speech in the Amendment also has specific meaning and does not fully extend to businesses. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speech-for-corporations.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speec...
- fallingknife 2y ago
  People need to understand that the only entity that can violate the constitution is the government. Citizens and companies are not restricted in their actions by the constitution, only the law.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    False. See generally the state actor doctrine. Courts have ruled extensively in the context of criminal investigations and FedEx; railroads and drug testing; NCMEC and CSAM hashes; and informant hackers and criminal prosecution.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      Which is just the government acting through proxies
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  But Reddit isn't discriminating against certain races, ethnicities, or religions. Individual subreddit admins are discriminating on the basis of identity. This no different than creating a Discord server or IRC chat channel where you only let in your church friends. Reddit isn't refusing service on the basis of protected class. Reddit users are doing so.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    The issue is that individual subreddit moderators each control hundreds of subreddits with millions of users. If 10% of the top subreddits ban anyone that participates in /r/Judaism or /r/Israel, that's a much bigger impact than a ban happy Discord mod. If one friend group is racist and you can't eat dinner at their house, that's qualitatively different than systemic discrimination by the restaurant industry. In this case, Reddit's platform has enough systemic discrimination that you have to choose between full participation in front-page posts or participation in Jewish communities.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      If you're talking about what your opinion of is morally right, or a healthy social media ecosystem I'm not really disagreeing with you - I don't think it's good for the subreddit mods to do this. But as per your comments, it does sound like you're making the claim that this activity is running afoul of nondiscrimination laws. This is incorrect. > If 10% of the top subreddits ban anyone that participates in /r/Judaism or /r/Israel, that's a much bigger impact than a ban happy Discord mod. The impact is not what matters. What matters is that the banning is done by users, not by the company. Non-discrimination laws prohibit businesses from denying business to customers on the basis of protected class. It doesn't dictate what users of internet platforms do with their block button. > that's qualitatively different than systemic discrimination by the restaurant industry. Right, but a restaurant refusing a customer is a business denying a customer. If Discord or Reddit put "We don't do business with X race" in their ToS that's direct discrimination by Reddit. If subreddit moderators ban people because they do or don't belong to a protected class, that's an action taken by users. You're free to create your own /r/interestingasfuckforall that doesn't discriminate. A bar can't turn away a customer for being Catholic. If a Catholic sits down at the bar, and the people next to him say "I don't want to sit next to a Catholic", and change seats to move way from a Catholic patron that's their prerogative. Subreddit bans are analogous to the latter.

jjmarr 2y ago

I agreed with you. If Reddit wanted to ban certain types of posts, they're entitled to under the First Amendment. They're not entitled to discriminate against certain races, ethnicities, or religions though. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/

riskable 2y ago
They most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on religion. The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could potentially discriminate against their employees (or in hiring) based on their religion: https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination There's no law that says you can't say, run a website that only allows atheists to participate, or non-Jews, or non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or whatever religion or religious classification that you want. Discriminating based on race or ethnicity is a different topic entirely. You can choose your religion (it's like, just your opinion, man) but you can't choose your race/ethnicity. There's much more complicated laws in that area.
- pc86 2y ago
  There absolutely is such a law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title II. If you provide public accommodations you may not discriminate based on religion. You can't stick a "No Muslims allowed" sign on your restaurant because it's open to the public. Reddit is publicly available even if they require registration, and neither Reddit nor subreddit mods may legally discriminate based on anything covered under the CRA. https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public...
  - riskable 2y ago
    The CRA only covers physical spaces (places of "public accommodation"). Not services (like Reddit).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      My understanding is that businesses cannot deny service based on protected class. E.g. Reddit couldn't put "Catholics are barred from using Reddit" in their TOS. But subreddit bans are done by users of Reddit, not by Reddit itself. If someone on Xbox Live mutes the chat of Catholics and kicks them from the lobbies they're hosting, you can't go complain to Microsoft because these are the actions of a user not the company.
    - pc86 2y ago
      Websites are public accommodations, this has been litigated over and over and over again. That why you can sue the owner of a website over ADA violations if they offer services or products to the public. I don't know why you keep doubling down when you're verifiably, provably wrong. I understand you may not want this to be the case, but it is.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- 2y ago
Moto7451 2y ago
None of this has to do with the First Amendment including the legal review you linked to. The Unruh Civil Rights Act that is discussed does not extend the First Amendment as the First Amendment does not restrict the actions of businesses. The Unruh Civil Rights Act does not extend the First Amendment as it does not restrict the actions of Congress or other legislatures. Freedom of Speech in the Amendment also has specific meaning and does not fully extend to businesses. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speech-for-corporations.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speec...
fallingknife 2y ago
People need to understand that the only entity that can violate the constitution is the government. Citizens and companies are not restricted in their actions by the constitution, only the law.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  False. See generally the state actor doctrine. Courts have ruled extensively in the context of criminal investigations and FedEx; railroads and drug testing; NCMEC and CSAM hashes; and informant hackers and criminal prosecution.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    Which is just the government acting through proxies
Manuel_D 2y ago
But Reddit isn't discriminating against certain races, ethnicities, or religions. Individual subreddit admins are discriminating on the basis of identity. This no different than creating a Discord server or IRC chat channel where you only let in your church friends. Reddit isn't refusing service on the basis of protected class. Reddit users are doing so.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  The issue is that individual subreddit moderators each control hundreds of subreddits with millions of users. If 10% of the top subreddits ban anyone that participates in /r/Judaism or /r/Israel, that's a much bigger impact than a ban happy Discord mod. If one friend group is racist and you can't eat dinner at their house, that's qualitatively different than systemic discrimination by the restaurant industry. In this case, Reddit's platform has enough systemic discrimination that you have to choose between full participation in front-page posts or participation in Jewish communities.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    If you're talking about what your opinion of is morally right, or a healthy social media ecosystem I'm not really disagreeing with you - I don't think it's good for the subreddit mods to do this. But as per your comments, it does sound like you're making the claim that this activity is running afoul of nondiscrimination laws. This is incorrect. > If 10% of the top subreddits ban anyone that participates in /r/Judaism or /r/Israel, that's a much bigger impact than a ban happy Discord mod. The impact is not what matters. What matters is that the banning is done by users, not by the company. Non-discrimination laws prohibit businesses from denying business to customers on the basis of protected class. It doesn't dictate what users of internet platforms do with their block button. > that's qualitatively different than systemic discrimination by the restaurant industry. Right, but a restaurant refusing a customer is a business denying a customer. If Discord or Reddit put "We don't do business with X race" in their ToS that's direct discrimination by Reddit. If subreddit moderators ban people because they do or don't belong to a protected class, that's an action taken by users. You're free to create your own /r/interestingasfuckforall that doesn't discriminate. A bar can't turn away a customer for being Catholic. If a Catholic sits down at the bar, and the people next to him say "I don't want to sit next to a Catholic", and change seats to move way from a Catholic patron that's their prerogative. Subreddit bans are analogous to the latter.