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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

No just rightwing ignorance and stupidity is involved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Imagine if mail/package delivery services refused to deliver liberal mail. Or if AT&T refused to allow conservatives to send text messages.

False comparison fallacy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Not liking it at all. Especially when you know that none of these people would give a shit if FB was cutting content they did not agree with


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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?

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?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

No just rightwing ignorance and stupidity is involved.

Nice non-response, poseur.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This is as ignorant as it ridiculous and wrong.

Only government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on speech through force of law; the First Amendment checks that authority, and exists solely for that purpose.

Private entities can't enact laws to regulate speech, and absent that authority, the First Amendment doesn't apply, and never will.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

No, it's not.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

 

[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.

This is as ignorant as it ridiculous and wrong.

Only government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on speech through force of law; the First Amendment checks that authority, and exists solely for that purpose.

Private entities can't enact laws to regulate speech, and absent that authority, the First Amendment doesn't apply, and never will.

They can enact rules to regulate speech in their domains, and things like facebook have become part of the commons, something government usually controls.

 

[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?

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..

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

 

[dblack]

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..

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

 

[martybegan]

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..

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

 

[dblack]

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..

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

 

[martybegan]

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

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

From people trying to explain things to you.

That you don't listen is on you.

 

[dblack]

WND, Infowars and I presume other right wing sites ban 'progressives' for content or just for being anywhere west of right wing whacko.

Unlike the far right- I don't have a cow about how private websites control their access.

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

From people trying to explain things to you.

That you don't listen is on you.

I hear it from socialists, every time they're trying to justify another government encroachment on private wealth.

 

[dblack]

The thing you're bumping up against here is the fact that, in a free society, government has less power than the people. And in a free market, economic power (wealth) has more power to influence society than government does. That drives socialists crazy and they are forever after that power.

 

[martybegan]

Those sites make their political views known, and are like comparing two cans tied to a string to Ma Bell if you compare them to facebook.

Facebook purports to be a platform for all. They are the new digital commons.

The only reason you don't care because you are a gutless prick and people you don't like are the ones being fucked with.

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

From people trying to explain things to you.

That you don't listen is on you.

I hear it from socialists, every time they're try to justify another government encroachment on private wealth.

Facebook and the internet in general are unique circumstances.

Again I don't think my concept of the digital commons is socialistic at all, and has roots in old English Common law.

 

[dblack]

I don't care how "common" Facebook is for some, it's no justification for socialism. Society isn't owned by the government. It's the other way around.

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

From people trying to explain things to you.

That you don't listen is on you.

I hear it from socialists, every time they're try to justify another government encroachment on private wealth.

Facebook and the internet in general are unique circumstances.

Oh come on, you've been around for more than a few weeks. This is always the excuse.

 

[martybegan]

it's not socialism. Stop falling into the trap of calling anything the government does socialism.

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

From people trying to explain things to you.

That you don't listen is on you.

I hear it from socialists, every time they're try to justify another government encroachment on private wealth.

Facebook and the internet in general are unique circumstances.

Oh come on, you've been around for more than a few weeks. This is always the excuse.

Sometimes its not an excuse, it's the truth.

 

[dblack]

LOL.... where have I heard that line before?

From people trying to explain things to you.

That you don't listen is on you.

I hear it from socialists, every time they're try to justify another government encroachment on private wealth.

Facebook and the internet in general are unique circumstances.

Oh come on, you've been around for more than a few weeks. This is always the excuse.

Sometimes its not an excuse, it's the truth.

Right. "It's different when we do it".

It's the same story every time someone decides that their vision for society is simply so important that they can't be bothered with persuading others to join their cause voluntarily. It's so much easier to pass a law and have the police do your dirty work.

 

[dblack]

martybegan - do you support the movement to nationalize health care as well? Because it's pretty much the same argument.