Americans Abandoning Free Speech Better Brace for the Consequences

But the question and dilemma still is: does a public media company have the right without any liability to ban or censor viewpoints that go against their political advocacy, and say they are banning whomever because they don't like them without any recourse? Certainly they can take sides and editorialize about stuff all they want, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

Trump tried to take away section 230 and also signed his EO, Trump wanted the social media platforms to take more responsibility for what was posted on their platform, now they are... guess be careful with what one wishes for

 

Then you either hate private property rights or don't understand what they mean. Sorry, but you and the other neo-Marxists aren't going to win this one, nor should you.

 

yep, that is what Trump wanted, State TV, controlled by the rich and powerful, he wanted to get rid of social media sites where anyone could speak

Trump wanted to be able to sue any site that let people speak ill of Trump, Trump was being short-sighted, didn't see the irony of his own tweets

 

Really? Was the election fair? The republican party doesn't think so. Gov't. And the RW media.

Did the virus magically disappear? Go away after the election? The gov't, republicans thought so.
And the RW media.

I bet you thought so on both accounts also.

 

They've always had that right.
Every written opinion piece written to a newspaper or read on TV had to go through the editorial process.

Not every one made it to the public. Or they had to try other venues or sources to get their editorial published.

That has been true since day 1.

So yes, they have that right. It is agreed upon when anyone signs up use of said media platform. EULA is agreed upon by every user.
And that is all anyone on those platforms are, is a user. A customer.

 

Deciding editorially to not publish a letter to the editor or a submitted op-ed is totally different from deciding to never publish anything at all from Messrs. X, Y, Z, and Q et al.

 

Really?
So, do you think KKK and the likes were NOT banned from Editorials on most newspapers?

Again, you and everyone agrees to the terms when one signs up to use their FREE service. Break the rules and get punished for violating your agreement.
Why are you against following the rules?

 

Yes they can. This is a free country for them just as it is for you and me. I've had posts deleted right hear for being unacceptable to the moderators. I don't usually understand the problem but I is their web site, not mine.

 

Perhaps you remember the "fairness doctrine" If not you can look it up. That was promulgated by the left.

 

Weird how some conservatives suddenly want more govt regulation.

 

And the likes???? Like who? The president? Any number of presidential aides? Business owners? Commentators???

 

I've had posts deleted too, but no problem either. PF can also ban individuals. Some forums can and have banned anyone with a particular viewpoint. That is extremely distasteful but perfectly legal. However, PF is not a true public institution like many of the social media giants have become, whether they planned it that way or not. If I own a restaurant that is open for all the public I cannot ban a black person for instance. I cannot ban a homosexual even if homosexuality goes against my religious belief. Secondly if a business advertises its product as doing such and such but then does not do it that way -- like Google -- that is wrong and illegal.

 

How do you figure that?

 

Not really, the Qpublicans have always championed big Govt regulation for personal freedoms and rights. Look at the laws they pass restricting personal freedom and controlling the masses.
They want, or did want, the big Corps to have free rein to anything they wanted. Until now that is.

Basic rule of thumb, if the Qpublicans are saying they are the party of (fill in the blank) you can bet your bottom dollar they are setting to **** that group.

 

Not surprisingly, Don wanted to have his cake and.................. He liked it when he benefited from the use of social media platforms as was the case when Russia was using them to disseminate lies on his behalf during the 2016 campaign. And of course he himself enjoyed using it for lying, attacking perceived enemies, and making pronouncements. What he didn't like was having some of those lies flagged as such.

Some good info can be found here. https://www.wired.com/story/section-230-reform-safe-tech-act/

WHAT’S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SECTION 230 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting most forms of speech, which would include many proposals to force tech companies to moderate content. A law that required companies to moderate content based on the political viewpoint it expresses, for example, would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.

Private companies can also create rules to restrict speech if they so choose. This is why Facebook and Twitter ban hate speech, for example, even though it is legally permitted in the United States. These moderation rules are protected by the First Amendment as well.

This issue is distinct from discussions over whether platforms should be liable for what their users post, though it often gets lumped in with the 230 discussion.

https://www.theverge.com/21273768/s...t-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation

 

Many working for the government promulgate lie after lie, by means other than Twitter. I don't go there, but I presume they also tweet lie after lie.

Mendacity amongst government officials is extremely common. For many it appears to be standard fare. Trump was not the first to do so.

 

That depends on the reason for the ban. You can ban a black person who formerly screamed at your customers and broke things. You can't ban a black person for being black. While I think the law in this case goes beyond the appropriate role for government at least it makes society better, not worse like many laws do.

If that were the case, then we would have take half the commercials off TV. Lately I have seen ads claiming that expensive pills filled with dried fruits and vegetables are the best approach to better health. I have seen automobile ads suggesting that buying the car will make the buyer cool and looked up to by other people.

I don't think the social media companies promise anything. Nothing illegal about what they do. The issue is whether or not they should be protected from lawsuits aimed at what their members post. Personally I have no problem with that protection. They aren't like regular media. Their content includes things created by third parties. They should not have protection from lawsuits about what they do themselves. As I said earlier they share the same freedoms the rest of us share.

If the public likes what they do then the public will make them successful. If not, they will disappear. Let the free market make these kinds of decisions. It is the American way, or at least it used to be.

 

You need to get the context of my remark by reading the post I was replying to.

 

I never said threats were part of free speech. YOU said that, I did not. Tell me something I don't know.

This and your other posts come across as gibberish, not related to the matter of censorship by corporations, censorship that serves government propaganda goals.

 

And the wolf in sheep's clothing for the utterly credulous left.

 

You will easily notice that all of these commercials are carefully worded to avoid illegal misrepresentation. You might notice that the majority of a drug ads time is spent telling you all of the things that can go wrong. The commercials of some companies that weren't as prudent cost those companies big bucks.

No they don't. I specifically singled out Google of violating that commercial restriction.

 

The likes. Nut groups that threatened and or killed other Americans.

Odd you see the likes of KKK to be a president or and aide, or business owners or commentators. Wow.

I noticed you couldn't offer an answer though.

 

There was a time decades ago when we had "truth in advertising laws." They have either been killed or ignored. current day advertising is one of my pet peeves. But I always keep in mind that those ads aren't targeted at me. I can ignore them with that knowledge. I think run into the kitchen and get a glass of tomato juice.

Giving up Google is easy. Really easy. I use Bing which is a far better search engine than Google. Even if Google were the cat's PJ's I would still use Bing. For people who don't want their activities sold to others Duck Duck Go may be a good choice. Bing is better, however. Google is NOT a monopoly. Not in any way. Just give it up.

 

Because I am responding to gibberish about censorship by private companies.

And the conspiracy theory of being in bed to serve gov't propaganda. If posts weren't gibberish, responses would not be gibberish.

And no one who claims such gibberish can prove it's gamed against a certain group of political beliefs.
They all violate the rules they agreed to.
And it's not political belief specific. That is just gibberish to state so.