Posted on 10/17/2018 9:52:58 AM PDT by TigerClaws
People who would like to stick it to Zuckerberg etc should realize that this can also be used against sites like this. Beware.
Non Dot Gov websites are not government actors, and are not subject to the First Amendment.
I’m excited waiting for the Creepy Porn Lawyer to appeal his Stormie case up to the USSC! That will be fun to watch.
This is all very simple, either they control and are responsible for the content or they are simply a forum, not claiming ownership or responsibility. They cannot have both. The first, responsibility means they insert their bias and are liable for the result. The latter, they don’t. Either way, they make lots of money. More in the latter. As a profit decision, I suspect they’ll opt for the latter eventually.
Selective enforcement is the real issue.
They waited until they were monopolies and a critical election approached to use the agreements to silence their opponents.
If they had enforced them all along, alternative sites would have arisen, which is why they didn’t.
Federal courts have ruled that they are a form of public utility and carry the same 1st Amendment protections.
It sucks they can shadow censor but this could come back and bite us this has the potential to impose a fairness doctrine to the internet.
They may not be government actors....but they are picking out items relating to our government.
Rush Limbaugh has explained the Fairness Doctrine many times, and that it did not impact his show in any way.
We can get them on selective enforcement. Enforce it all the time, or not at all.
Choosing to enforce it at election time is election interference.
He can’t even appeal it. It was dismissed and d*** a** has to pay Trump’s attorney fees.
“Federal courts have ruled that they are a form of public utility and carry the same 1st Amendment protections.”
Then that court is legislating from the bench, and has no respect for our Constitution, conservatism, or limited government.
I don’t like Google, Facebook and Twitter censoring speech based on their political bias, but they are not the government. They are private companies and what folks are using is in reality their property - their means of Internet publishing.
I also don’t like the bias and actual news censoring of the dominant media companies, but there again THEY ARE private corporations.
I don’t think I want courts turning private companies into de facto handmaidens of government “free speech” mandates, by the courts, the executive branch or Congress.
I would hope sooner or later public social & financial persuastion would get them to reform themselves.
There are schedule limits to how many programs can air in a day.
Not so websites, facebook posts, or youtube videos.
A publisher doesn’t have to produce every book, a printer doesn’t have to print every tract, etc...
Those who are now in ‘violation’ didn’t violate any speech codes or copyright matters.
the feds should be doing this and not give the power to the courts
Ain’t disagreeing with you. But until such a time as the SCOTUS smacks them down, their rulings stand.
“Rush Limbaugh has explained the Fairness Doctrine many times, and that it did not impact his show in any way.”
The Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987.
Now THIS could be YUGE!
I agree. I sometimes wonder why Supreme Court looks at certain cases.
Citation, please.
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.