How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently only bakers and photographers have a right to associate.

There is a difference between applying PA laws to a non-essential, easily replaceable service or good, and saying that a social media platform that purports to be a neutral site for people to interact should be a champion of free speech.

Whether or not Facebook, Twitter, and, YouTube wants to champions of free speech is entirely up to them. Why should they be forced to host anyone on their platform aganist their wishes? We don't need the government intervening as a free market solution already exists: Disable your accounts, log off, and, never return. They will change their business practices accordingly if enough people do so.

or the progressive left will have no voices in opposition and then take over via apathy from the right.

Fine, if they want to play political oppressor then they have to be required to state that publicly, and have concrete rules for who they will de-platform.

I'd honestly have to review their Terms of Service. It's possible there's an argument for false advertising. They certainly put themselves forward as a neutral platform, open to anyone. And they certainly aren't anything of the sort.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about...

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Not Rush, not Fox, not even the first amendment.

This thread is about the complete and utter disregard the left has for half of our nation and it is asking what we do about it.
I understand that most of the left can't take the op to task on the merits of the first post so we've diverted to Rush & the like. If you want to discuss those other things you keep bringing up feel free to create your own thread on that topic.

Yeah, but I'm not sure the government is the answer to private companies going political.

It's not. This thread is ment to light a spark. Doubtful it will work.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

I disagree. I think it's time to introduce them to the joys of the free market, and start looking for the Next Big Thing to replace them. If it's not out there today, it will be tomorrow.

The thing is platforms like facebook seem to favor the ONE BIG THING, to increase interconnectivity.

Better to just declare them a commons/utility and regulate them.

Ah.....have the government take them over, eh? Federalize them.

No takeover needed. They can still be a for profit company. They just have 1st amendment requirements extended to them (requirements, not rights) as part of a new digital commons.

And the legal precedent for that would be . . . ?

You start with the fact that they use regulated means of transmission (the internet) and extend from there a new concept of a digital commons.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is places like facebook and youtube and twitter, aren't the media in the traditional sense, they are more of a form of an electronic commons that takes the place of the old village square.

I know it goes against my libertarian leanings, but I almost think it's time to treat these places AS public commons, and thus obligated to protect the Rights of people using them, just as government would protect the village square.

I disagree. I think it's time to introduce them to the joys of the free market, and start looking for the Next Big Thing to replace them. If it's not out there today, it will be tomorrow.

The thing is platforms like facebook seem to favor the ONE BIG THING, to increase interconnectivity.

Better to just declare them a commons/utility and regulate them.

I pretty much never default to "the government should take over".

No takeover needed. There is ample framework for simple regulation.

Describe this framework, preferably with legal citations.

Not saying you're wrong. Just saying I'd like your idea spelled out before I weigh in, because I'm leery.

it would be a new legal concept.

Sorry, I'm an Engineer, not a lawyer, I fix problems, but sometimes I know engineers can create bigger problems than what they try to fix.

 

[dblack]

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

Using government to bully Facebook is classic progressivism. Not sure how you steer around that.

How is making them follow the 1st amendment bullying them?

Facebook is already "following" the 1st Amendment. Let's look:

"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."

All Facebook has to do to abide by the 1st Amendment is not be Congress, and not make laws abridging freedom of speech. Since Facebook isn't Congress, and it can neither make nor enforce laws, it's literally impossible for them to violate the First Amendment.

And this isn't just a legal 'technicality'. It's vital to understanding constitutionally limited government. The First Amendment is not a law. It's a restriction on government.

Again, this is why I never vote Republican. No matter how big or small their 'L' is, they really just don't get it.

Yes, I get the basics of it, but you ignore the impact of technology as well as the commons like nature of the internet, and more accurately large social media platforms.

So the theory is that they're too big and important to be allowed rights?

Seems I've heard arguments like that before ...

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't have to be that way. It uses public/utility/common bandwidth to transmit its information and create it's common space.

Private management of the commons can be done, such as private management of roads and rails, or ports under government direction.

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

How about their own First Amendment rights?

As detestable as I find the idea of social media companies censoring people for their political views, as much as I think they should be sued up the ass for it if a credible case can be made for them violating their service agreement with their customers, I do not think that private companies are obligated to the First Amendment the way the government is.

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

 

[martybegan]

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

Using government to bully Facebook is classic progressivism. Not sure how you steer around that.

How is making them follow the 1st amendment bullying them?

Facebook is already "following" the 1st Amendment. Let's look:

"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."

All Facebook has to do to abide by the 1st Amendment is not be Congress, and not make laws abridging freedom of speech. Since Facebook isn't Congress, and it can neither make nor enforce laws, it's literally impossible for them to violate the First Amendment.

And this isn't just a legal 'technicality'. It's vital to understanding constitutionally limited government. The First Amendment is not a law. It's a restriction on government.

Again, this is why I never vote Republican. No matter how big or small their 'L' is, they really just don't get it.

Yes, I get the basics of it, but you ignore the impact of technology as well as the commons like nature of the internet, and more accurately large social media platforms.

So the theory is that they're too big and important to be allowed rights?

Not at all. This doesn't impact their rights because they have already had the position that their users are not facebook, they are users of facebook.

 

[martybegan]

Apparently only bakers and photographers have a right to associate.

There is a difference between applying PA laws to a non-essential, easily replaceable service or good, and saying that a social media platform that purports to be a neutral site for people to interact should be a champion of free speech.

Whether or not Facebook, Twitter, and, YouTube wants to champions of free speech is entirely up to them. Why should they be forced to host anyone on their platform aganist their wishes? We don't need the government intervening as a free market solution already exists: Disable your accounts, log off, and, never return. They will change their business practices accordingly if enough people do so.

or the progressive left will have no voices in opposition and then take over via apathy from the right.

Fine, if they want to play political oppressor then they have to be required to state that publicly, and have concrete rules for who they will de-platform.

I'd honestly have to review their Terms of Service. It's possible there's an argument for false advertising. They certainly put themselves forward as a neutral platform, open to anyone. And they certainly aren't anything of the sort.

I would also have less of an issue if they just came out and said we will pick and choose who we want as users based on their politics.

 

[dblack]

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

How about their own First Amendment rights?

As detestable as I find the idea of social media companies censoring people for their political views, as much as I think they should be sued up the ass for it if a credible case can be made for them violating their service agreement with their customers, I do not think that private companies are obligated to the First Amendment the way the government is.

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

 

[martybegan]

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

How about their own First Amendment rights?

As detestable as I find the idea of social media companies censoring people for their political views, as much as I think they should be sued up the ass for it if a credible case can be made for them violating their service agreement with their customers, I do not think that private companies are obligated to the First Amendment the way the government is.

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

 

[dblack]

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

How about their own First Amendment rights?

As detestable as I find the idea of social media companies censoring people for their political views, as much as I think they should be sued up the ass for it if a credible case can be made for them violating their service agreement with their customers, I do not think that private companies are obligated to the First Amendment the way the government is.

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

 

[martybegan]

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

How about their own First Amendment rights?

As detestable as I find the idea of social media companies censoring people for their political views, as much as I think they should be sued up the ass for it if a credible case can be made for them violating their service agreement with their customers, I do not think that private companies are obligated to the First Amendment the way the government is.

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

 

[dblack]

How about their own First Amendment rights?

As detestable as I find the idea of social media companies censoring people for their political views, as much as I think they should be sued up the ass for it if a credible case can be made for them violating their service agreement with their customers, I do not think that private companies are obligated to the First Amendment the way the government is.

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

 

[martybegan]

They will still have them. Remember that they shield themselves from liability over users posts because they say "it's not our content, it's the user's content". If they want that protection, and use that logic, then the user's speech is not facebooks, facebooks is not the users. They could still post whatever they want as a platform position, thus their 1st amendment protections remain intact.

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

 

[dblack]

Their First Amendment rights are impact in no way, shape or form by Facebook's policies. This has been spelled out repeatedly in this thread. Even the OP agrees.

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

It's not as simple as solving a problem. The real question is whether this is the kind of problem government should solve. Does the problem justify passing, and enforcing, laws? Or can we deal with it as a society voluntarily?

 

[martybegan]

I disagree. by using the whole "it's not our content" defense from .liability they open themselves up to the fact that they are indeed censoring posters. Extending the 1st amendment to them would I know require new law, but the concept of the digital commons isn't completely out of left field.

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

It's not as simple as solving a problem. The real question is whether this is the kind of problem government should solve. Does the problem justify passing, and enforcing, laws? Or can we deal with it as a society voluntarily?

To me if they hide behind a law shielding them from liability over the content posted on their platform, they could be made to accept said content regardless of political leaning.

 

[dblack]

It's about as "left" as it gets. This is the classic socialist argument.

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

It's not as simple as solving a problem. The real question is whether this is the kind of problem government should solve. Does the problem justify passing, and enforcing, laws? Or can we deal with it as a society voluntarily?

To me if they hide behind a law shielding them from liability over the content posted on their platform, they could be made to accept said content regardless of political leaning.

And who decides? Who decides what is "Fair and Balanced"? The government? Trump? Really???

 

[martybegan]

No, it isn't.

There is no change of ownership of facebook.

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

It's not as simple as solving a problem. The real question is whether this is the kind of problem government should solve. Does the problem justify passing, and enforcing, laws? Or can we deal with it as a society voluntarily?

To me if they hide behind a law shielding them from liability over the content posted on their platform, they could be made to accept said content regardless of political leaning.

And who decides? Who decides what is "Fair and Balanced"? The government? Trump? Really???

They just can ban users based on the content of their speech. They can still ban for threats, porn and other things that have already been decided to not have 1st amendment protections.

And you don't even need the government to enforce anything, it just opens up avenues for people to sue if they rights are infringed on.

 

[dblack]

Right.... they'd just be "partnering" with government.

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

It's not as simple as solving a problem. The real question is whether this is the kind of problem government should solve. Does the problem justify passing, and enforcing, laws? Or can we deal with it as a society voluntarily?

To me if they hide behind a law shielding them from liability over the content posted on their platform, they could be made to accept said content regardless of political leaning.

And who decides? Who decides what is "Fair and Balanced"? The government? Trump? Really???

They just can ban users based on the content of their speech. They can still ban for threats, porn and other things that have already been decided to not have 1st amendment protections.

And you don't even need the government to enforce anything, it just opens up avenues for people to sue if they rights are infringed on.

Suing people, assuming you expect them to pay you if you win, requires government to enforce the court's decision. That's what makes suing someone different than sending them a letter asking for money.

But, I ask again, doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest to have government in charge of deciding which political views deserve protection and which don't?

 

[martybegan]

No, they would be following a very simple guideline. If they want to claim that users posts are not "facebook" posts, they don't get to hide behind a legal shield without admitting they DO NOT have first amendment rights to other's posts on their platform.

Again, this is all legally shaky, but a solution to a problem.

It's not as simple as solving a problem. The real question is whether this is the kind of problem government should solve. Does the problem justify passing, and enforcing, laws? Or can we deal with it as a society voluntarily?

To me if they hide behind a law shielding them from liability over the content posted on their platform, they could be made to accept said content regardless of political leaning.

And who decides? Who decides what is "Fair and Balanced"? The government? Trump? Really???

They just can ban users based on the content of their speech. They can still ban for threats, porn and other things that have already been decided to not have 1st amendment protections.

And you don't even need the government to enforce anything, it just opens up avenues for people to sue if they rights are infringed on.

Suing people, assuming you expect them to pay you if you win, requires government to enforce the court's decision. That's what makes suing someone different than sending them a letter asking for money.

But, I ask again, doesn't it seem like a conflict of interest to have government in charge of deciding with political views deserver protection and which don't?

The courts are arbiters, one of the main functions of government.

Are courts socialism now too?