Posted on 05/27/2020 8:10:55 AM PDT by kevcol
No. These are communications companies. They either serve everyone who sits at their lunch counter, or they get forced out of business.
This is an existential issue. We will not be able to exist as a free society if we allow people to control and censor American speech.
They either serve everyone, or they be prohibited from serving anyone.
You are telling me that a massive communications infrastructure system in wide usage in America that has over a billion users world wide is no threat to "free speech"?
You are very much mistaken, It is a horrendously bad threat to freedom of speech. It is effectively silencing half the population's voice.
As defined by the US Constitution the only entity that is prohibited from imposing restrictions on speech is the US Government.
The intent of the founders is that speech be not censored, and the only entity they saw capable of it was the government. Now conditions have changed, but freedom of speech is essential to freedom, and whether it be censored by government or by private entities exercising the power of a government is irrelevant to the threat this poses to free society.
We cannot afford to let the existing situation continue. It is a serious threat to our freedom.
Jim Robinson can throw everyone of us out if he so chooses.
Free Republic is effectively a club. It has little larger impact on public speech in general. These behemoths we are talking about carry massive amounts of public speech, and can have great effects on the election process, which is precisely why they want to control speech.
This is their tool for election manipulation, which in itself is degrading the right to vote and the process of free elections.
He shook their playpen bigly.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth in 10, 9 8...
Your anti trump bias continues
The US Constitution still applies to these conditions. There is nothing new about government t wishing to control private speech.
These are privately owned businesses. You are neither forced to join or participate. The other idea that half the population is being silenced is ludicrous. Especially when half the population doesn’t even use these platforms. Save the hyperventilating you may catch the WuFlu.
Private entities are no threat to freedom. Your employer can censor your speech and that is proper. They can fire you if your a Trump supporter and that is how it should be. No one forces you to work. Don’t agree with google your employer your church? Quit. The government should not enforce speech codes. You have no right to be heard.
Your are anti Constitution and anti speech. Speech codes and lockdowns tyranny has no bounds.
No, I would have been promoting home schooling and church schools, just as I have all through my adult years.
Just need actual names for all social media posts and posters. And actual names of the editor(s) of a post.
Then, any libel/slander goes against the poster or editor.
Social media posting sites would shrink by 90%.
Of course he does.
Section 230 says
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"
FR is clearly an interactive computer service.
turn them into utilities ASAP
FB, GOOG TWIT, AMAZON, Insta, Utube, Snapchat,
As we've seen in the past, competitors get closed down for not towing the politically correct liberal line.
What was the Twatter or Social Media company that had its internet connections yanked because they weren't politically correct? It happened in the past 18 months, I just cannot remember their name or find them via google search. (Damn' mini strokes have really f'ed up my memory)
I definitely back Trump, but he’s not perfect and some of what he has done and not done might as well be acknowledged instead of denied.
Just charge them a nickel per tweet payable to the wall fund.
We have anti trust laws.
Not only are these companies monopolies, they have strong crony ties to people in government.
POTUS has no constitutional authority to shut down any element of social media.
And everyone here should be damn glad of that.
At best the US DOJ can pursue violations of existing laws. And none of those laws will have anything to do with censorship. As all social media is free to censor as they see fit.
“Massive social media platforms like F Book and Twaddle need to either respect political free speech and not throttle views they don’t like, or be subject to liability laws as publishers.”
The crux of the matter.
They cannot on one hand “curate” what is published, and on the other hand be free from liability concerning the content of that publication.
“He has authority under the Sherman anti trust acts...”
No, he does not.
Anti trust concerns specific behaviors, at the scale of monopolies. It concerns acts to restrict competition.
While media companies can, and should be evaluated against this existing standard, only a court can impose a solution.
Not POTUS or DOJ.
“This is a huge violation of free speech.”
Not really.
There are thousands of outlets for speech. FB and twiddle are but two.
There are more TV broadcasts, newspapers and magazines, oratory and written word available to a greater extent than at any time in human history.
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.