Posted on 03/20/2017 2:08:16 PM PDT by davikkm
In an article for the Washington Examiner last week, writer Mark Grabowski pondered the idea of whether Twitter’s routine censorship could be unconstitutional. “Most Americans know they can speak their mind in the public square, thanks to the First Amendment. Speech on social media, however, can be censored because private companies own those cyber spaces,” wrote Grabowski on Tuesday. “But a recent Supreme Court oral argument suggests Twitter’s practice of banning controversial right-wing pundits could be deemed illegal.”
Grabowski explained how the internet is now the popular public square, and how legally it should be treated as such.
Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old ‘Main Street’ — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property. In the 40 years since that landmark ruling, social media has become society’s modern day public square. Think about it: If I were in the shoes of those California students today and wanted to maximize the number of signatures I got for such a petition, I’d first put it online, and then I’d tweet it to various pro-Israel politicians, celebrities and others with a large number of followers who could easily retweet it and thereby broadcast it to millions of people.
“During the Supreme Court’s recent hearing on North Carolina’s law, justices acknowledged this shift,” Grabowski concluded.
Last year, Gizmodo reported that average internet celebrities can make $75,000 per Instagram advert, and $30,000 per commercial tweet, further complicating the implications that can come from being banished from platforms such as Twitter.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s pretty disturbing that conservative-content deemed “offensive” is taken down immediately by “triggered” liberals, yet postings by Islamic extremists is left up for everyone to see...
Doesn’t work.
The domains belong the corporation, and they are providing a service. Users no more have the right of “free speech” on social media site than they have the right to “free speech” in someone’s brick and mortar business.
Twitter is a “Public Accommodation” company just like the Baker in Oregon. They need to be SUED!!!
More than that, they are a public utility. Twitter censoring tweets is like Verizon prohibiting telephone conversations among conservatives.
“But a recent Supreme Court oral argument suggests Twitter’s practice of banning controversial right-wing pundits could be deemed illegal.”
Say whut? I’m as far right as I can get, and even I don’t support this notion. People engage in commercial endeavors to make money, accumulate wealth, and grow their businesses, fulfill a dream. That doesn’t change just because it bits and bytes rather than bricks and mortar.
To that end, the business owner should ALWAYS have the right to refuse service to anyone.
I would no more condone telling Twitter they MUST carry my tweets than I would condone forcing a bakery to make a gay wedding cake.
More than that, they are a public utility.
I think you are right, Facebook too.
And if Twitter engages in defamation of character?
If you take the most restrictive view of free speech and individual rights.
But when you have companies with virtual monopolies and their product is providing a platform for speech to people so they can reach millions of other people, then censorship issues due to come into play.
So these liberals business owners have no business motive and are operating on no other motive than to censor opinions they don’t agree with and to keep Christian and conservative voices out of electronic media, and that’s all right. I certainly don’t think Christian business owners that provide a personal sort of service like cake baking or photography should be legally required to participate, but wouldn’t support a bakery being able to refuse entry and selling a cake or cookies off the shelf to people who identify as homosexual.
I see that Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail as a resource, although they’re at least as reliable if not far more so than the NY Times, Washington Post and CNN. But this is to pressure the DM to be more like them.
And the FBI is investigating Breitbart and Infowars for “ties to Russia.”
How long will it be before ISPs simply start blocking the most “controversial” conservative and Christian “fake news site,” until the rest either self-censor or get included in the blocking. And in your view ISPs can do that too since they can refuse service to anyone.
Property is property. Either we respect it or we don’t.
They don’t have a monopoly. There are other social media sites. They are not using up a limited bandwidth.
And I do take a very restrictive view of Free Speech and Individual Rights.
Property is property. Either we respect it or we don’t.
They don’t have a monopoly. There are other social media sites. They are not using up a limited bandwidth.
And I do take a very restrictive view of Free Speech and Individual Rights.
Property is property. Either we respect it or we don’t.
They don’t have a monopoly. There are other social media sites. They are not using up a limited bandwidth.
And I do take a very restrictive view of Free Speech and Individual Rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.