by Fisherman 8 Replies latest social current
Law makers in the US want to pass laws that apply the First Amendment of the US Constitution to social media forums such as TikTok and YouTube that have banned poster for speech and content violations.
In the US, 1A usually applies unhindered to traditional public forums (such as sidewalks and parks) with restrictions only as to time place and manner.
"Law makers in the US want to pass laws that apply the First Amendment of
the US Constitution to social media forums such as TikTok and YouTube
that have banned poster for speech and content violations."
That's wild,wild stuff. Can you further explain what you're talking about?
Example:
Texas passed a law stating that social media platforms cannot "ban" users for posting content of a political nature.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/16/texas-social-media-law/
What this means is a private entity is being told they must allow users to post whatever they want if it is a political view. So, this means social media would have to allow users to post false information (e.g. "The Big Lie"). The U.S. Constitution is being applied to a private party when it is only applicable to government.
The public air waves, infrastructure built through public rights of way correspond to public sidewalks. There is only so much bandwidth, my city allows only one cable company.
Give me a straight story, I will draw my own conclusions. Who defines the lie?
First Amendment
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.
The government is not to make any law prohibiting the exercise of free speech. The law in question would be the same as saying whenever someone wants to say something of a political nature inside your private place of business you have to let them inside to give their $0.02.
"The government is not to make any law prohibiting the exercise of free
speech. The law in question would be the same as saying whenever
someone wants to say something of a political nature inside your private
place of business you have to let them inside to give their $0.02."
Correct. But it sounds like they are gonna try to make the argument that the internet is a public utility therefore nothing can be banned.... or something. The obvious counter to that would be "no one is stopping you from setting up your own website."
But....these are the types who pitched tantrums during Covid when private businesses asked them to leave for being maskless. They felt their "constitutional rights" were somehow being violated. In short, they're morons.
Part of the fight is the question are these outlets platforms or publishers. If they are a platform anybody can say anything and the people running are not responsible for what is said. If they are a publisher they are (or in my opinion should be) responsible for the content, meaning they have to verify everything and can be sued if somebody is putting out misinformation.
The problem (in my opinion) is that the outlets are trying to have it both ways. They want to screen posts for political content they don't like, but don't want to be sued for something written by somebody totally unconnected with the website. Laws like this are an attempt to solve the problem. The social media has to publish whatever gets submitted, and accepts the protection from lawsuits.
The alternative is they put a out a clear and detailed statement of what is and is not allowed, and employ an army of fact checkers to examine ever single message for compliance. If something gets through they can be sued.
Edited to add: the first amendment protection of speech has always applied to the publisher. If I'm publishing a newspaper the government can't tell me what I can or can not put in my newspaper. If you submit an article and I decline to print I have not violated your rights. You can start your own newspaper anytime you want, and publish what you want.
Part of the fight is the question are these outlets platforms or publishers
That’s a very good point. The tension is that websites such as youtube are cyber places where the public goes to publish their content. It is not like a privately owned store where the public goes with the purpose to purchase and the property owner has authority restrict 1A on his property or a private meeting place such as church where the public is invited and 1A is also restricted, or a newspaper that publishes whatever content it likes. A newspaper is not open to the public although it could choose to publish any content submitted by someone that is not an employee. However, websites such as youtube is where members of the public go to publish views and content and that is why it might be legally classified as both a platform and a publisher. That’s just the nature of it. The website is liable for what it publishes but since it can also be viewed as a public place -that is to say a platform because members of the public go there with the purpose of disseminating speech, in the US, the law may require the site (although privately owned ) not to discriminate or deny service based on 1A standards. The principle is that since all members of the public can go to the site (it’s open to the public) with the purpose to publish their views, the owners of the site may not be legally allowed to discriminate some people because they don’t like them but need to have legal reasons not private ones.
I want to add that it could be argued that in social media sites a person needs to apply to be allowed to post, and agree to abide by terms of service, so it cannot actually be classified as a platform; you don’t need a license for example for free speech on the sidewalk.The sidewalk therefore is a platform whereas social media sites are actually publishers in that sense. But also social media sites are open to the public to watch content and listen to public views and interact with the public . So it’s not like a newspaper publishing the views of the owners. The social media sites publish the views of the general public tos or not, that’s the purpose of the service they provide, public views on things, and what the US government is saying is that social media has to be fair, they can’t discriminate when people wish to speak freely about things.
