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

[dblack]

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?

I don't see how. But they are coercive.

Anyway, does it bother you at all putting government in charge of deciding which political speech is allowed on Facebook?

 

[TheParser]

Re: the question in the thread title.

The answer is: We cannot do anything.

*****

Like it or not, this country is moving toward a European style of politically correct nation, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, etc., where you cannot say anything that might hurt the feelings of even one single person.

When the Democrats take back the government (legally or illegally), they will continue to stop all politically incorrect speech.

Democrats have already succeeded in closing down certain websites and banning many social media members.

I would not be surprised if the coming Democratic administration finds a way to scare FOX NEWS into behaving itself -- or else!

 

[martybegan]

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?

I don't see how. But they are coercive.

Anyway, does it bother you at all putting government in charge of deciding which political speech is allowed on Facebook?

Not what is allowed, what the owner is allowed to squash, more importantly, what the owner is allowed to squash while they enjoy protection from liability from said posts.

 

[dblack]

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?

I don't see how. But they are coercive.

Anyway, does it bother you at all putting government in charge of deciding which political speech is allowed on Facebook?

Not what is allowed, what the owner is allowed to squash, more importantly, what the owner is allowed to squash while they enjoy protection from liability from said posts.

Seems like a distinction without a difference. Government is still making the call on what free speech is protected, and which isn't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, not seeing anything to like there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

A new legal concept with absolutely no connection to anything previously.

Really, REALLY not liking the sound of it.

 

[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.

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.

Well, I won't say I don't consider it utterly inappropriate for them to present themselves as one thing, and then act as something else.

I'm just not seeing where it's the federal government's place to get involved with that.

If you ask me, what Facebook REALLY needs is a nice, big class-action lawsuit on behalf of users who were told it was an open platform for everyone, and then were denied the same access as others because Facebook employees personally disliked what they said.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Well, I won't say I don't consider it utterly inappropriate for them to present themselves as one thing, and then act as something else.

I'm just not seeing where it's the federal government's place to get involved with that.

If you ask me, what Facebook REALLY needs is a nice, big class-action lawsuit on behalf of users who were told it was an open platform for everyone, and then were denied the same access as others because Facebook employees personally disliked what they said.

That would be optimal.

On the other hand we can just yank their "it's not us, it's the users" post protection if they want to claim their own 1st amendment rights when it comes to their platform.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's legalistic hairsplitting. "We're not taking possession of your company, we're just telling you how you have to run it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm pretty sure they already have those avenues to sue. I will bet you money there are eager lawyers around the country who are right now working out an angle for a monster lawsuit. I'd frankly be surprised if they haven't been looking for an opportunity for a long time now, and FB's censorship has handed it to them on a silver platter.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There is no doubt that the Democrats are dangerous totalitarians. Their censorship will have to be challenged in court.

 

[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.

That's legalistic hairsplitting. "We're not taking possession of your company, we're just telling you how you have to run it."

In one specific instance, in a very narrow way.

We regulate oil refineries and other industries all the time.

 

[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.

I'm pretty sure they already have those avenues to sue. I will bet you money there are eager lawyers around the country who are right now working out an angle for a monster lawsuit. I'd frankly be surprised if they haven't been looking for an opportunity for a long time now, and FB's censorship has handed it to them on a silver platter.

Maybe, but it would have to be class action and you would need a law firm with deep pockets.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That's legalistic hairsplitting. "We're not taking possession of your company, we're just telling you how you have to run it."

In one specific instance, in a very narrow way.

We regulate oil refineries and other industries all the time.

You really think oil refineries are comparable to Facebook?

I'd say the accurate analogy is going to be other types of media. And while we DO have laws regarding media, we are rightfully very cautious about what forms they take.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No, the thread premise is about another ignorant conservative trying to propagate the ridiculous rightwing lie that 'liberals' are trying to 'silence' conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

facebook isn't the media or the opinion of one person, it's whole purpose is for people to join and interact with each other. They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

To you but not as a fact of law.

Private entities will never be subject to First Amendment jurisprudence, nor should they.

And FB isn't 'silencing' anyone, conservatives have ample other media to propagate their message.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm pretty sure they already have those avenues to sue. I will bet you money there are eager lawyers around the country who are right now working out an angle for a monster lawsuit. I'd frankly be surprised if they haven't been looking for an opportunity for a long time now, and FB's censorship has handed it to them on a silver platter.

Maybe, but it would have to be class action and you would need a law firm with deep pockets.

Not hard to come by, on either score.

I would actually bet on, as with the tobacco company lawsuits, a coalition of law firms each ponying up a percentage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No, the thread premise is about another ignorant conservative trying to propagate the ridiculous rightwing lie that 'liberals' are trying to 'silence' conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And I will point out once again- the rightwing snowflakes have no problem with right wing websites 'censoring' both the content and who is allowed to post on their sites.

Their angst is solely when a private business censors the 'heroes' of the right wing.

 

[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.

That's legalistic hairsplitting. "We're not taking possession of your company, we're just telling you how you have to run it."

In one specific instance, in a very narrow way.

We regulate oil refineries and other industries all the time.

You really think oil refineries are comparable to Facebook?

I'd say the accurate analogy is going to be other types of media. And while we DO have laws regarding media, we are rightfully very cautious about what forms they take.

Regulation is regulation. If Facebook says it's not responsible for it's users posts, that the users posts are part of the user's expression, and not facebook's, they pretty much give up saying the 1st amendment applies to their platform except when facebook itself makes a statement.

At that point you are just regulating a business, something the feds do too often I admit, but is allowable.

 

[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?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

facebook isn't the media or the opinion of one person, it's whole purpose is for people to join and interact with each other. They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

To you but not as a fact of law.

Private entities will never be subject to First Amendment jurisprudence, nor should they.

And FB isn't 'silencing' anyone, conservatives have ample other media to propagate their message.

I bet your tune would be different if progressives were being banned for content, you fucking hack.

And Occupy Wall Street tried to say private owners of public areas that were open in exchange for air rights were subject to the 1st amendment.