Posted on 10/17/2018 9:52:58 AM PDT by TigerClaws
he Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits. That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment. The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month. PLAY VIDEO Facebook says security breach affected 30M, not 50M, accounts On its face, the case has nothing to do with social media at all. Rather, the facts of the case concern public access television, and two producers who claim they were punished for expressing their political views. The producers, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, say that Manhattan Neighborhood Network suspended them for expressing views that were critical of the network.
In making the argument to the justices that the case was worthy of review, attorneys for MNN said the court could use the case to resolve a lingering dispute over the power of social media companies to regulate the content on their platforms.
While the First Amendment is meant to protect citizens against government attempts to limit speech, there are certain situations in which private companies can be subject to First Amendment liability. Attorneys for MNN have made the case that social media companies are clearly not government actors. But in raising the question, they have provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to weigh in.
“the feds should be doing this”
How. “Freedom of Speech” ONLY means the gubernut cannot interfere or discriminate in your freedom of speech.
A private citizen or a private company CAN control what their property is used for, and that includes determining views your private property may or may not become a megaphone for.
So, HOW would the feds stop Facebook et al from censoring - “nationalize them”???
I hope you’re right. They have always said they are a free and open mark et tplace of ideas.
Another question is whether it became a de facto marketplace.
From Facebook's prospectus:
Advertisers can engage with more than 900 million monthly active users (MAUs) on Facebook or subsets of our users based on information they have chosen to share with us such as their age, location, gender, or interests. We offer advertisers a unique combination of reach, relevance, social context, and engagement to enhance the value of their ads.
Facebook is now denying access to large segments of banned users that advertisers expected to be there when they invested in building their storefronts on Facebook.
Compare it to the recent bakery free speech cases. The bakery analogy is not quite correct. Facebook is not selling cakes.
Instead, what if the bakery offered floor space to people to set up their own shops, using the bakery's ovens, refrigerators, storage space, and customer lists? Then, after you set up your successful business, the bakery decides to evict you because they don't like what you're putting on your cakes?
That's more like the Facebook model, according to their prospectus. Facebook is offering a generic storefront to people and access to Facebook's customer base. Once people establish a successful storefront on Facebook, Facebook is evicting them based on their product content.
And, that eviction is arbitrary. In Facebook's case, it was not their practice to ban content until conservatives won the big elections, which makes Facebook's action seem arbitrary given that they wouldn't be doing this if the election went the other way.
An arbitrary contract (in this case, the user terms of service) is no contract at all. I believe the legal practice is that an arbitrary or ambiguous contract term (like "hate speech" or "fake news") is to be decided against the party that drafted the contract, which would be Facebook.
Facebook could be found in violation of their terms of service, not the banned customers, if this goes to court.
-PJ
.
Then the phone co. can deny you service “just cuz.”
If suddenly Facebook was faced with a million breach of contract suit by people who paid to have their ads sent to the general poulationo, they could be driven into bankruptcy. And local businesses could sue Facebook for minor damages in thousand of small claims venues all over the nation.
By shadow banning and general suspending and banning for thought content they subject themselves to huge contract liability. Not to mention the constitutional violation of censorship on a defacto public square.
They have to either ban all political views or allow them all. They can’t pretend to be an open forum and engage in content discrimination.
This is going to be good.
I’m betting on this one SCOTUS goes 9-0. There is precedent in the mall cases.
the large social media sites are now monopolies. Their control of political speech isa threat to the country. The feds have history of power to break up trusts and monopolies.
What are you talking about?
I think an equal or better approach to this issue is to present a case to the Federal Election Commission that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, are providing direct and in-kind donations to political parties and candidates by suppressing opposing viewpoints.
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.