3 ms·

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to a

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

Avicebron 3mo ago
Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square? We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.
- c22 3mo ago
  If we want a digital public square we should fund one with public tax dollars.
  - Avicebron 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  - fool0 3mo ago
    We had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule isn't the same thing.
- JohnFen 3mo ago
  IANAL, but just a web searcher. It appears that legally, in the US, public-facing private spaces are in a weird place. A lot depends on the specifics of the space. The closes analogy I can think of is shopping malls, which are privately owned but used as if they were public spaces. In general, "Private spaces used by the public, like shopping malls or private campuses, are typically non-public forums. The government cannot compel access to private spaces, but private operators may allow or restrict expression under private law and policy, balancing property rights with constitutional protections in some cases." However, there have been cases where constitutional free-speech protections were extended into malls. This can happen if the property takes part in federal programs or gets federal subsidies or tax breaks. https://bridgelegal.org/what-legally-defines-public-space/ https://bridgelegal.org/what-legally-defines-public-space/
inigyou 3mo ago
You're thinking of the first amendment. Twitter banning me infringes my free speech but not my first amendment rights.

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

Avicebron 3mo ago

Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square? We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.

c22 3mo ago
If we want a digital public square we should fund one with public tax dollars.
- Avicebron 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- fool0 3mo ago
  We had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule isn't the same thing.
JohnFen 3mo ago
IANAL, but just a web searcher. It appears that legally, in the US, public-facing private spaces are in a weird place. A lot depends on the specifics of the space. The closes analogy I can think of is shopping malls, which are privately owned but used as if they were public spaces. In general, "Private spaces used by the public, like shopping malls or private campuses, are typically non-public forums. The government cannot compel access to private spaces, but private operators may allow or restrict expression under private law and policy, balancing property rights with constitutional protections in some cases." However, there have been cases where constitutional free-speech protections were extended into malls. This can happen if the property takes part in federal programs or gets federal subsidies or tax breaks. https://bridgelegal.org/what-legally-defines-public-space/ https://bridgelegal.org/what-legally-defines-public-space/

inigyou 3mo ago

You're thinking of the first amendment. Twitter banning me infringes my free speech but not my first amendment rights.