3 ms·

> private corporation like Twitter/X, Facebook, and now Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws

> private corporation like Twitter/X, Facebook, and now Bluesky can implement any moderation policies they want, and it will never violate "free speech" laws Simply not true in the state of California where most of these companies are based. According to the CA supreme Court, you have a right to free speech on private property that is regularly available for public use. By that metric all of these companies are blatantly violating the constitution of their home state.

hn_acker 2y ago
> According to the CA supreme Court, you have a right to free speech on private property that is regularly available for public use. According to both sides of the aisle on the US Supreme Court, a social media site is not a public forum [1]. [1] Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-loud-clear-that-social-media-sites-are-not-public-forums-that-have-to-allow-all-speech/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-lo...
- anon291 2y ago
  This would be the CA Supreme Court. The CA constitution has explicit protections for public speech on private property, per the CA Supreme Court.
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    How broad is that CA Supreme Court ruling? The CA Constitution can't override the First Amendment rights that social media sites have to decide what user content to remove from their servers [1]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...
    - anon291 2y ago
      Absolutely they can and do. Many malls have been forced to allow demonstrators due to it. California's constitution would apply to California companies hosting people in their spaces. It would absolutely apply between California users and Californian companies
      - hn_acker 2y ago
        > California's constitution would apply to California companies hosting people in their spaces. > It would absolutely apply between California users and Californian companies According to the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution of the United States (which includes its own First Amendment) overrides any state constitution. > Many malls have been forced to allow demonstrators due to it. The article I linked [1] in my previous comment explains why a shopping mall could be forced to host peaceful demonstrations but a social media site can't be forced to host similar speech: > As AELP admits, the Supreme Court’s 1974 Miami Herald opinion held that the First Amendment prohibited Florida from requiring a newspaper to print a political candidate’s reply to a critical article. According to AELP, PruneYard distinguished Miami Herald by holding that “open-access laws do not present the same First Amendment concerns as right-to-reply laws.” That is false. The Supreme Court didn’t say anything about open-access laws. It said that Miami Herald “rests on the principle that the State cannot tell a newspaper what it might print.” > AELP tries to salvage its imaginary distinction between open-access and right-to-reply laws by insisting that “the Miami Herald newspaper did not hold its pages open to all members of the public.” That is also false. Yes, newspapers exercise “editorial discretion” over which articles they print. But newspapers don’t just publish articles, they also publish ads. And they’re generally happy to publish advertisements by anyone willing to pay. AELP insists that “Newspapers are exclusive publications; the public cannot, at any moment, publish their views in the New York Times.” Yes, they can. All they have to do is buy an ad. So, newspapers are, in fact, “open to all members of the public” willing to pay for the privilege. In AELP’s terms, newspapers are and always have been “open-access.” > That’s fatal to AELP’s argument. According to AELP, the First Amendment allows states to prohibit social media companies from censoring users, because social media websites are “open-access.” But newspapers are also “open-access,” because anyone can buy an advertisement. So, AELP’s argument necessarily implies that the First Amendment also allows states to prohibit newspapers from censoring advertisers. > Wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite in PruneYard itself. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t tell newspapers what to print. > What’s the real difference between Miami Herald and PruneYard? It’s simple. Newspapers are in the speech business and shopping malls aren’t. The First Amendment says the government can’t force you to share someone else’s speech, but sometimes it can require you to tolerate speech you dislike. And which is social media more like? The business that is in the speech business, or a shopping mall where speech has nothing to do with its business? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...

hn_acker 2y ago

> According to the CA supreme Court, you have a right to free speech on private property that is regularly available for public use. According to both sides of the aisle on the US Supreme Court, a social media site is not a public forum [1]. [1] Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-loud-clear-that-social-media-sites-are-not-public-forums-that-have-to-allow-all-speech/ https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/18/supreme-court-signals-lo...

anon291 2y ago
This would be the CA Supreme Court. The CA constitution has explicit protections for public speech on private property, per the CA Supreme Court.
- hn_acker 2y ago
  How broad is that CA Supreme Court ruling? The CA Constitution can't override the First Amendment rights that social media sites have to decide what user content to remove from their servers [1]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...
  - anon291 2y ago
    Absolutely they can and do. Many malls have been forced to allow demonstrators due to it. California's constitution would apply to California companies hosting people in their spaces. It would absolutely apply between California users and Californian companies
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      > California's constitution would apply to California companies hosting people in their spaces. > It would absolutely apply between California users and Californian companies According to the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution of the United States (which includes its own First Amendment) overrides any state constitution. > Many malls have been forced to allow demonstrators due to it. The article I linked [1] in my previous comment explains why a shopping mall could be forced to host peaceful demonstrations but a social media site can't be forced to host similar speech: > As AELP admits, the Supreme Court’s 1974 Miami Herald opinion held that the First Amendment prohibited Florida from requiring a newspaper to print a political candidate’s reply to a critical article. According to AELP, PruneYard distinguished Miami Herald by holding that “open-access laws do not present the same First Amendment concerns as right-to-reply laws.” That is false. The Supreme Court didn’t say anything about open-access laws. It said that Miami Herald “rests on the principle that the State cannot tell a newspaper what it might print.” > AELP tries to salvage its imaginary distinction between open-access and right-to-reply laws by insisting that “the Miami Herald newspaper did not hold its pages open to all members of the public.” That is also false. Yes, newspapers exercise “editorial discretion” over which articles they print. But newspapers don’t just publish articles, they also publish ads. And they’re generally happy to publish advertisements by anyone willing to pay. AELP insists that “Newspapers are exclusive publications; the public cannot, at any moment, publish their views in the New York Times.” Yes, they can. All they have to do is buy an ad. So, newspapers are, in fact, “open to all members of the public” willing to pay for the privilege. In AELP’s terms, newspapers are and always have been “open-access.” > That’s fatal to AELP’s argument. According to AELP, the First Amendment allows states to prohibit social media companies from censoring users, because social media websites are “open-access.” But newspapers are also “open-access,” because anyone can buy an advertisement. So, AELP’s argument necessarily implies that the First Amendment also allows states to prohibit newspapers from censoring advertisers. > Wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite in PruneYard itself. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t tell newspapers what to print. > What’s the real difference between Miami Herald and PruneYard? It’s simple. Newspapers are in the speech business and shopping malls aren’t. The First Amendment says the government can’t force you to share someone else’s speech, but sometimes it can require you to tolerate speech you dislike. And which is social media more like? The business that is in the speech business, or a shopping mall where speech has nothing to do with its business? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...