Posted on 05/15/2019 10:37:32 PM PDT by caww
The White House announced a reporting tool to let people share instances of political bias by social media platforms.
“The Trump Administration is fighting for free speech online. No matter your views, if you suspect political bias has caused you to be censored or silenced online, we want to hear about it!” the White House said on Twitter Wednesday.
“SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear 'violations’ of user policies,” the form says. “No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.”
The form allows users to report an “action against your account” by Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube.
The end of the form asks users if they want to sign up for an email newsletter “to keep you posted on President Trump’s fight for free speech.”
Trump has targeted ire at social media platforms in recent weeks as they censored several high-profile accounts.
“I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!” Trump said earlier this month.
“So surprised to see Conservative thinkers like James Woods banned from Twitter, and Paul
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
good
finally we have an advocate!
the deep stater trolls are not going to like this yogi.
Crush those subversive SOBs!
They can be reported but that will be the end of it. They’re not government and they can censor of they want to.
There must be a way to get this fixed. Make social media public utilities or create better social media platforms that honor free speech.
If online business can be discriminatory, then why can’t all other businesses?
Why is it a violation of federal law if you don’t want to do business with some protected selfrighteous person, but places like facebook and twitter can discriminate to their hearts desire? What is the difference?
No difference, except you use the word, “protected”. Political ideology isn’t a protected class. Only homos, women, all races except Caucasion, etc., are protected. Our country is a mess.
I’m no lawyer, but I suspect it’s the agreement users sign on to when joining these sites. Likely the agreement allows the platforms to ban whoever they feel like banning.
If that’s the case, then the collecting of data is an excellent, reasonable step to take. Make it clear what the platforms are doing, then make make them defend it in the court of public opinion.
Pretty close to an “EO”.
It would be a lot easier just report examples of non-bias—if any are found.
“The freedom of the press” is enshrined in the First Amendment. It was not established by it; that freedom existed before, during, and after the ratification of the Constitution). Note that 1A does not refer simply to absolute “freedom of the press” - which would have abolished laws against pornography and against libel - but rather “the [existing] freedom of the press.” I am not obliged to say everything I know to be true - that would be a full-time job for anyone, and also would be tactless - so inevitably I say only the things that I want to at any given time. And yet, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "Half the truth is often a great lie.”“Bias” is a loaded term; your “opinion” (if it differs from mine) is my “bias.” We are all entitled to our own opinions, that is natural right and constitutional law. So much for bias/opinion.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but there is such a thing as truth: we are not entitled to our own facts. The laws of libel are what enforce that. I can sue for libel if you print a malicious lie about me.
The trouble is that in 1964 SCOTUS unanimously held that Republicans can’t sue for libel. Well, that’s not how they put it - but that is the effect of SCOTUS’s New York Times v. Sullivan decision.
The Sullivan standard makes it difficult to the point of impossibility for a “public figure” to sue for libel. That would be politically neutral if the press in America were politically neutral. That was far from the case in 1964, in fact it was worse then than it is now. Not because the press was more tendentious then than now, but because calling out that tendentiousness was - in a three-network world, with no internet and hardly any conservative commentary, even on radio - barely a thing. Barry Goldwater did complain about “the referees” after his landslide defeat that year, but . . .
The reality was, and is, that major journalism is wire service journalism, and wire services unify journalism (it is also true that in the Internet era the wire services are no longer "too big to fail"). And the reality of “If it bleeds, it leads” is that for commercial reasons journalism focuses like a laser on flaws (real or imaginary) in society which cry out for the government to “do something.” It is also a fact that journalists systematically go along and get along with each other when they claim that “all journalists are objective.” But the government not only may not require journalists to have no opinions, it also may not treat journalist’s claims of objectivity as evidence of anything other than journalistic self-interest.
Journalism’s “If it bleeds, it leads” perspective means that journalism is negative about society. Journalism’s claim of objectivity, in full knowledge of their negativity, is a claim that negativity is objectivity - which is cynicism. Journalism is cynical about society and, correspondingly - naive about government. Which is a pretty good definition of socialist ideology.
People have a right to form political parties, and the government cannot forbid parties from aligning themselves with the political disposition of journalism. That certainly has the advantage of assuring that you never get libeled by journalism. And that explains the Democrat Party - and why opposition to the Democrat Party puts you in such danger of being libeled.
The Sullivan decision does not consider the possibility that my analysis is accurate. There was no reason that the wire services and the monopolistic - and socialistic - tendencies would have been brought to the Court in the Sullivan case. The implication of Sullivan is that a Judge Kavanaugh or a President Trump can be libeled mercilessly without recourse. Sullivan is a dead end. Unanimous decision or no, it must be overturned or at least bypassed by SCOTUS. And that can only happen if a Republican sues for libel and antitrust violations of the wire services and their members/subscribers. And appeals to SCOTUS when he is denied standing.
The Steele Dossier?
Practically everything printed/broadcast by the MSM about Donald Trump. And the thing is, libels against President Trump are libels against his voters as well.
Right!
I guess it has.
Just send them your email address so they can do fund raising.
That's all they were after in the first place.
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.