Who does the First Amendment protect?
"As is usual, the President, when he is talking about the Constitution, appears to be so wrong that he has it literally backwards" Beau of the Fifth Column
I thought this interesting. I have never seen this guy's stuff before and, I hate to admit it, the way he looked and all the military looking stuff in the background lead me to expect something a bit different than it turned out to be. Worth the watch.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Seems like a common sense view to me. What do you think?
I've seen this guy a few times. He seems very intelligent, and has a knack for stating such concepts in such a way as to compel most people (I would hope) who listen to him to think really hard about what they've been seeing as grievances.
Agreed. I think a lot of what made me listen to him was that, while his body language shows how he seems to feel about Trump, he doesn't turn it into an anti-Trump rant. He logically explains what he thinks about the issue and leaves it up to us to think what we will. Of course, I haven't seen any of his other videos so maybe this one is unique, but I wish we all could discuss issues this way.
It's a lot more complicated than than just reading the text of the First Amendment. There are thousands of other laws and tens of thousands of legal presidents based on the First Amendment. There's a reason Constitutional Law is a specialty. One thing to consider is Twitter isn't a Bar where people hang around and argue even if it seems like one it's more like the Phone Company. There are a lot of laws pertaining to reasonable access or equal opportunities for Candidates on broadcast networks and some of those laws may pertain to this. It may come down to Discrimination if Trump can prove that others have been allowed to do what he's being punished for. I know people have tweeted about "Burning it Down" while buildings were actually being burned down and weren't banned. Unfortunately Constitutional Law may not be clear on "Social Media" because it's so new and very different from anything that has come before. We know Political Speech is a large part of what people do on Social Media and Twitter has capitalized on that and has become a forum for Political Speech and it is that aspect of Social Media where Constitutional Law has Gaps. Is Twitter like my living room where I can kick out anyone I disagree with or is it a Public Square/ Open Forum where free speech is not only encouraged but Constitutionally Protected. We'll see how this goes if it makes it to court.
Twitter accounts where threatening violence if Amy Comey Barrett was nominated and their accounts where not banned. And banning speech about Hunter Biden is another one of Twitter's biased decisions. Twitter could care less about promoting or inciting violence. They clearly have their lips firmly planted on the Democrat's smelly asses.
Can you reach millions of people with a phone call?
Good points, all. There's more to this than I realized. Thanks.
Refusing service to one person and not another who broke the same policy sounds like a violation of civil rights. Anyone who has been banned should seek a class action suit against Twitter. They obviously have not been consistent in applying their policy.
So I take it you think a baker or a photographer should not be able to refuse service to gay people?
By using Twitter you have to have agreed to their ELUA. Much like a business that puts up a sign "No Shirt, No Shoes No Service", it sets the rules for its use. Just because a billion people decide they want to use your restaurant doesn't mean the users get to reject the rules and claim it's their freedom to not wear shoes that should be protected instead of the cleanliness of the restaurant or their rules.
There are very specific things the government can control over private businesses. Businesses cannot discriminate based on gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation or disability. Beyond that it's up to the private companies to set their own rules of use. If they want to ban someone for using violent hate speech or even the word "moist" they can do so.
Parler isn't being banned because it's "conservative" or "Republican", it was kicked off a private companies platform because they continued to allow violent hate speech calling for the deaths of Democrat politicians and others they disagreed with. The government didn't do this so it's clearly not a violation of the 1st amendment. In fact, if the government forced a private company to host such hate speech it would violate the constitution. I don't think there are many conservatives who think FOX or even Parler should be forced to host liberal viewpoints or content, yet they seem adamant that their conservative content should be hosted by every media platform and scream about the first amendment any time they run into a company that says "No violent hate speech, No conspiracy theories about a flat earth, Lizard people, Qanon or the 'deep state', No service.". That private company decision does not discriminate based on gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation or disability, unless of course you consider people who believe such nonsense mentally disabled. Perhaps that's the legal tack they should try, proclaim themselves mentally disabled persons who are being discriminated again, that seems to be the only arguable standing they have.
I also have to shake my head at the political angle trying to be put on it. That is not the only thing the platform is about.
There are people that only talk about the television show Big Brother, there are people that only post animal memes/vids, there are celebrities promoting movies, etc.
For some to pick out just political speech is a misnomer.
It is almost like they are saying political speech should be a protected class.
Worse, it is the idea that words designed to incite violence should be protected.
Nope. Unless it is because you are part of a protected group your civil rights were not violated.
They will lose that case in a heartbeat. Unless they can prove that they were banned BECAUSE they are a member of a protected group their civil rights have not been violated. Twitter can ban you because you violate the ToS, because you broke up with an employee or just for the fuck of it and they have done nothing illegal. Sure you can bitch about their ToS not being enforced fairly, but so what? Those are internal company rules, not law. Now of course not enforcing policies equally is not good for business, but it is not illegal.
Kinda like how a gas station attendant can kick a homeless person out because they are homeless and smell like shit, but they cannot kick that person out because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation.
As are all the Amendments to the Constitution...
And that is the question right there that needs to be debated and settled. How do we classify social media?
Which absolutely should not happen.
Definitely agree, though that seems to be the angle some are pushing.
Just as there is for Divorce law, Criminal Law, Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, ..heck, even the relatively new field of Space Law.
Some legal disputes are involved with federal laws. But there are also many, many cases involving State laws, county laws, even municipal laws.And there is also a reason for that!
It isn't going to be debated. The tech giants have already won. The DOJ's amendment, Trump's executive order, and Hawley's bill are all dead now. Why do you think all the social media platforms have weilded their power to help Democrats win? And now are simultaneously banning Hawley's book, Trump, Parler, etc. Only fools believe it is about inciting violence.
Good grief! What a popular strawman....
Agreed. Since so much public discourse happens through such venues, they have a frightening amount of power in shaping that discourse for a non-governmental body. Saying they have the right to do what they want with their platform because they are a private enterprise may very well be saying they have the right to shape public opinion by allowing only certain views. That should scare the crap out of us all. We all know how frustrating getting something deleted here when we think there was no reason for it right here in NT. Now imagine not being able to say anything at all for the foreseeable future?
This isn't an argument for Trump to get his accounts back. I'm actually relieved he can't tweet anymore. It's an argument that private enterprise shouldn't be the one to decide these things. We need to come up with fair and common sense laws that determines this. And, like it's illegal to shout "fire" in a movie theater, there should be things illegal to say or promote on such platforms. But at least we'd have a legal, codified basis for what those things are, rather than leaving it up to the owners of the platform's opinion.
And how so? All are private companies. There is no legal basis to go after twitter for enforcing their own rules, unless they are denying service to a protected class.
Last I heard, political speech is not in itself a protected class.
Also, I had to hear for months, if not years, how a company should be able to do what it wants.
To be able to discriminate at will. Now some people feel their political speech is being discriminated against and are throwing a fit.
Hypocritical at the very least.
What I think people fail to understand is there is a difference in a candidate espousing their stance and a candidate espousing violence against opponents.
Most people can see the difference, including moderators.
Twitter doesn't ban all those who espouse violence. That is the point. Just those they choose to.
That is what most people choose to ignore.
Other people/groups are clearly glorifying violence and some call for violence on Twitter, yet their accounts have not been banned.
Antifa's Call to Violence Gets Free Rein on Twitter While Trump is Censored - National Legal & Policy Center (nlpc.org)
Example of one of their tweets....
They do not follow their policy/rules and are a bunch of fucking hyprocrites.
Twitter is full of shit about banning because of inciting violence.
There is a difference between political speech and inciting violence. Twitter said they banned Trump for inciting/glorifying violence not for political speech.
Why are these other accounts allowed to stand?
People get banned and suspended all the time for violating rules. Most of the people that do just do not have the following to be noticed,
The problem you and others seem to have is with Anonymous.
trump and his supporters thought they were.
Did I say they didn't?
Can people incite violence on Twitter or not? Is it like yelling "fire" in a theatre? Why does Twitter let Antifa promote violence on their platform?
And now they will continue to be able to do it because of the dumbass Democrats.
I agree
Any point you may have had was lost with your last sentence.
So you are all for banning just because of being butthurt.
I'm particularly interested in this. Do you have evidence that Twitter let Antifa promote violence? I do know that it was reported that an account that posted violence claimed to be Antifa was found to be a white nationalist group, known as Identity Evropa. Twitter did close that account, but I'm not aware of what the timeline was. I'm sure Parlor would love to see what evidence you have so they can present it at the law suite they filed against Amazon today.
Antifa Antifa Antifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa AntifaAntifa Antifa
Listening to some people, you'd thing Andy Antifa had been president of the United States for the past 4 years and lying to the people 24/7.
Without antifa, would Donald Trump even exist?
Doesn't really matter. As you say, most can see the difference. It shouldn't be too hard, then, to codify these things into law. Trump would still be banned. Only it wouldn't be by the power of a private enterprise's opinion, but law. One possible law might be that any obviously personal attack rather than discussion would be censured, and after a number of such violations, banned for a time. If they try to log in under some other name, a fine or something. Just spit balling, here, but it's a start to thinking about it.
And as you say, most can see the difference, it's simply too much power in a non-elected private concern. What if all those platforms had a more right leaning view of things?
Why is that? What are they going to do about it? Continue to have useless hearings? At least the Republicans where doing something but that is dead now.
Actually... it probably is. If a company has a public profession of whatever, but does not respect that profession, it's probably open to a lawsuit. It's part of the "moral contract" between the company and all interested parties.
That's the case. Are you favorable or unfavorable? Do you consider "color of skin" to be a criterion for selection, equivalent to "how bad they smell"?
Honestly because I think codifying laws about it would be a slippery slope.
It is putting it all into the governments hands.
If they aren't they can be sued. I'm sure Parlor who is doing just that could use whatever evidence you might have to help them out. You have any? I'm certainly willing to check out what you have with an open mind.
The republicans just want to be able to sue them for what they consider injustice. Basically forcing companies to either let them have their views be heard or pay a price.
Hardly doing something about it.
Did they actually take down posts or did they slap a label on them saying something was misleading?
What is wrong is thinking everything is one sided when that is not the case.
If a person is espousing violence the context doesn't matter. That person is breaking the law.
Which is fine with me. IMO they are private businesses and should be regulated/treated as such.
Oh please, the publisher decided they didn't want to be associated with one of the primary instigators of that shit show last week. He can find a new publisher. Trump has been a nonstop violator of Twitter (and other social media platforms) ToS for years. Frankly they gave him a longer leash than any other user, he should have had his account blocked years ago.
And Parler? Well, several web hosting companies decided they no longer wanted to be associated with the company after it refused their requests to implement moderation policies and clamp down on the violent rhetoric. Parler refused and so several companies terminated their relationship. Again, I have no problem with any of that.
Well then perhaps certain people should not, you know, incite violence and violate the CoC or ToS of whatever social media platform they are using.
Because Twitter has decided to allow them to stand. Twitter does not owe explanations to anyone. If a tweeter doesn't like the site's way of doing things... they can complain! To the company.
Asking for evidence of your claim (because I'm truly curious) is falling into political correctness? Wow!
I think it is nuance people are complaining about. For example if someone said death to president so and so, that is a direct threat. Someone saying I wish president so and so would die, is not really a direct threat.
Nuances as to what is considered what and how it should be dealt with.
You still don't understand the difference between political speech and inciting violence.
What is wrong with making these platforms a safe enviroment and insuring that they are operated in good faith?
Read the DOJ's amendment, and the Congressional Bill.
I read a very Liberal poster on there. He had his account suspended until he removed a certain post. He finally did and had his account reinstated.
I am sure he didn't feel it was fair...
I understand the difference just fine. I also understand that sometimes it can be one and the same.
Yes, Twitter has allowed accounts that promote violence to stand.
It'd be an extremely difficult case to win, especially against a company that has hundreds of millions of customers. The obvious defense for a company like twitter is "there are billions of tweets made everyday, we do the best we can but we cannot catch everything." What is a court going to do, require infallible moderation? And again, what law have they broken exactly?
A death threat is already a crime. Conspiracy to kill anyone, much less the President, is already a crime.
Simply wishing someone would die is... nothing. (Unless you're a king talking about an archbishop...)
Uh huh. Again, until you can find where it is illegal for them to let some accounts remain while getting rid of others then there is nothing to talk about. If you don't like how a company does business, use a different company.
At the threats to be shut down Parlor tried to come up with a plan to police it's posts - an army of "volunteers". Amazon's argument to shut down Parlor saying they (Parlor) can't possibly catch all the posts that are against it's ToS agreement. Parlor is now suing saying Amazon isn't fairly applying it's ToS. It will be interesting to see how it's ruled, though Amazon has the money to drag this out longer than Parlor might be able to stay viable.
I also think it has to do with culpability. Someone that has 50 million followers and the people believe every lie told on that account has a lot more impact that someone with 5 followers.
Are people acting out on what was said on this account, are people ignoring what was on this one.
Again, I am thinking of weird nuances.
They're private companies. The alternative would be to have someone (the government??) tell Twitter what to do.
Okay, if that's the way you feel...
It is. The government having oversight of social media is the way communist nations would handle it. It is a way fascist governments can control media.
Imo if anything is done it should be done at a very basic level.
I just think that Twitter is stupid.
I think they are all kinda stupid. But they can have their good points and bad points.
I loath facebook and zuckerberg.
Twitter can be funny at times. There is one account I read called Dodo or something. Shows weird relationships between animals and humans, or rescued animals. Several people I like. Most of the things I look at aren't political.
Now if they make me have to join to read, so long. Haha
Okay, but I think it shouldn't be "just let the platforms handle it". I think there ought to be at least something done legally to sort this out, even if just basically.
From my perspective I put forth the news media, which seems about as partisan as they could possibly get. All of them. And that's where we are getting our information!
I pretty much loathe them all. The only account I have is Facebook and I haven't used that in years. Should just have them delete me. It's too often just a big rage fest.
I wasn't aware that Antifa had a Twitter account seeing as they aren't an actual organization with any official leadership. I also have never used Twitter and the only Tweets I've read are ones posted here on NT by others so perhaps I'm wrong.
Now you're just flinging poo for no reason. Democrats aren't in control of Twitter or any of the social media sites. Perhaps the owners of the site lean toward liberal and progressive ideals, but that's because reality has a liberal bias while the very definition of conservative is clinging to the past that simply doesn't exist anymore.
I'll bet MANY accounts of those who label themselves anti-fascist have also been deleted when they espouse violence, they just don't get the same coverage since they're not whining as loud as the religious conservatives are.
What is to sort out though? The idea that it is bias? How would one even sort that out. Would it be the governments job to decide what is acceptable and what is not?
These platforms can be used to spread news and/or information just like a cat meme can spread. They are not news organizations.
Anyway, the only thing that I know of that was in the works was rescinding protections.
um, Speech inciting a riot is against federal law. I already gave examples of Twitter permitting it on their site.
Well, Twitter censored posts about the New York Times Hunter Biden story. That doesn't seem a bit shady to you? People aren't allowed to talk about it? It was a news article from a major news outlet for goodness sake. Why should such platforms get to decide which news stories we get to discuss?
Why can they be forced to run a story? It goes both ways. I am not a member yet I heard about it all over the place. It was non stop here for a while.
They themselves are not the end all be all of communication. Then again, maybe I am just old and don't assign it as much relevance as the younger folk. Haha
Refusing to publish a book is "banning" it? You have a very broad interpretation of "banning". I should have a book deal. If I'm not given a book deal, even if I write a book that's utter crap, my book is being "banned", and my rights are being trampled on
That would be a violation of the First Amendment.
I couldn't support that as a law. Personal attacks are free speech. Incitement of violence is not. It is, and should be, legal to call Trump a buffoon every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. It should never be legal to call for his assassination. However, a certain platform (like NT) might ban personal attacks as part of their own policy. So ban a person for breaking a policy of the platform they're using? Sure. Make it part of the legal code? No.
The thing is, it is not a crime for a legal entity (e.g. a corporation) to be biased and to manifest their bias in their products and services. Certainly the MSM has proven this beyond a doubt.
And we do not want government stepping in and overruling policies of the legal entity except in cases of discrimination against protected classes and public safety.
As long as a company has pre-published rules (which are in compliance with existing laws) and they follow those rules in their execution of censorship (so as to not engage in arbitrary censorship) within their offered services, the market should decide if this is good or bad.
We are discussing a fine line between freedom and state-imposed 'fairness' (which is not going to be fair).
Quite a few of the tweets from that link did not call for violence. Some did, but the author seems to be really reaching in many cases.
Do you consider Twitter a monopoly?:
Yeah, I don't really think that would fly, either, which I think is unfortunate. So much of what goes on is just hate fests, where everyone just feeds of each other's hate. I think it's why there's such a depressing amount of polarization we are seeing. Sort of like acceptable violence.
Some folks incorrectly think entities like Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc., private companies, to be be monopolies because they don't like what they're saying, doing, etc.
I can't agree. To me, that becomes legislation of manners. No, thanks.
They did glorify violence or those who perpetrated violence which is also prohibited by Twitter. Yet are allowed to remain.
Which is the point of the article, but I think you knew that.
Not all of them.
The article, which is from a right-wing source, spins calls for protest as calls for violence.
Yes. They aren't the ones making the comments. Ever seen calls for violence in the comments on an online newspaper article? I have. Should we ban newspapers?
Bullshit. Show where the article does that.
The Anonymous tweet calling for the fall of the regime, for example. You do know that in the US, regime changes come about by way of elections, right?
And there are laws against it. And some companies have rules against it. That's why Trump is gone from Twitter. Some don't have rules against it, and that's why Parler was used to plan riots.
Bullshit. You do know regimes are not voted out.
I'm opposed to monopolies on principle... but I'm not sure how this could work.
How would you break up Twitter... and more importantly, how would you prevent one of the morsels from swallowing the others, like the ex-Bell morsels thirty or forty years ago.
I suppose we could cap each morsel at 10% of the market, but wouldn't that encourage each "tribe" of users to unite on the same morsel? That would hardly encourage diversity.
I don't understand your post.
Depends on how those regimes got there in the first place. Some would call the Trump administration, with its cronyism and attempts to negate an election a "regime", or at least an attempted one.
One tweet was informing of a meeting time and place for a BLM protest. No call for violence in that one.
Why allow hate speech? What is the value?
The word regime is not so narrowly defined. It often refers to authoritarian governments but also to a democratic government that is viewed by the speaker as bad. That is, it is correct usage for some to refer to the Trump administration as a regime. And it will be correct usage for an opponent of Biden to refer to the Biden administration as a regime. Tune in to Rush Limbaugh and wait.
Not everywhere. Most European countries have laws against it.
The US doesn't have regimes. Regardless of what you like to call them.
I don't know what you are referring to so post it.
So far you still have only posted bullshit.
That's how I read it. "Regimes" are in the eyes of their subjects.
I can't C&P pics from that page. It's your link, and I assume you can read and figure out which one is a tweet of the details for a protest.
They can be; that is legitimate usage. Sunshine is using a more common and semantically narrower usage, but she is wrong to deem hers exclusive. It is not.
Agreed.
Also, protesters, being protesters, are always going to use language that is loaded against that which they are protesting. Thus governments become "regimes", even if "regime" is a broad use. The broader use suits their purposes.
It's your comment. You should be able to validate the claim or it is just bullshit.
Your link doesn't validate yours.
How? When you open up your browser, are those the only sites you can get to? Of course they're not. The fact that you named 3 sort of points to the fact that even if they were the only sites available, they are none of them a MONopoly.
Yes it does, gives many examples. I already posted one.
Now validate yours.
Here is the definition I listed @ 1.2.81 :
None of the companies you listed have exclusive power as described. They are big and powerful, but they do not have exclusive power over their respective markets and certainly not over the Internet itself.
I would think they would know what type of government the US is.
You posted the link, so I know you have access to it. You can read it, right? So I shouldn't have to spoon-feed it to you. So look for one that has a time, date, and meeting place for a BLM protest. Right there, in your linked article. Sacramento, May 30th, if that helps you find the tweet.
There is no call for violence.
It's details for a protest. As protected by the First Amendment.
Jeez, Sandy!
That's not fair.
You're calling attention to facts...
Not fair...
You have access too. I had no problem posting from the article.
Why should I do your work? I already did mine.
You prove your own comment. As of yet you haven't. Don't put it on others to spoon feed you.
It is perfectly legit to refer to the administration of a federated constitutional Republic as a regime if one is applying the usage of the word that connotes disapproval:
We know where the spin is here and it isn't the article.
Good grief, the lengths some go to to.
One would think that including the Encyclopedia Britannica treatment of the word would suffice to illustrate that Sandy's usage is legit.
An odd rebuttal to claim that the Encyclopedia Britannica is engaging in spin. That is called 'deflection' is it not?
One would think that they would look at other tweets in the same article by the same group before making a stupid assumption that they are referring to a fall of regime by votes. It isn't Sandy's usage. Did she write the tweet?
Now that is spin.
You stated:
Well, Sunshine, regimes can indeed be voted out given I proved @1.2.120 that it is legit usage to deem the Trump administration as a regime and it most certainly was voted out.
What will be your next spin attempt?
Sorry you're having trouble finding tweets in your own link, even with a description, including the contents, having been spoon-fed to you. I'm confident anybody here, excepting yourself, it seems, can find the relevant tweet by clicking your link and scrolling down, and that they will see no call for violence in the tweet in discussion.
The only thing I use Facebook for is to maintain old friendships with people that no longer live near me and family that no longer live near me. I have my profile set to private and a limited number of "friends" on my list. There MIGHT be 5 or 6 people on my list that I have NOT met or known in real life and those women I've become quite good friends with and we help one another from a distance. I also keep an eye on my kid's posts. Although... my 12 year old does NOT have FB... my 17 year old and "the adopted one" (19 yr old) do.
Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people saying, "look at me"... kind of like TikTok.
See my response to Ender regarding social media accounts.
Actually Dennis, while I generally agree with you, the very definition of monopoly does not apply to Twitter, FB, or Google; an oligarchy, maybe, but not monopoly.
So is it your posit that Twitter should be libel for the illegal content of the Trump's tweets they allowed to stand?
I think while they may not be monopolies once they host a large enough segment of society they become a Public Utility. Sure there are other choices but if you want to reach the hundreds of millions of people on Twitter or Facebook you have no choice but to use the platform they use. Public Utilities are not owned by the government but they face more government regulation because of their size and power. I doubt the government will make COC Laws but I think in the future these Social Media Giants will be treated more like Public Utilities and their COC's will have to meet guidelines for fairness. They've already opened the door for this type of regulation by asking for and getting immunity from liability for things their users post.
Google, for instance, controls about 90% of internet searches. Controlling more than 50% of a market is generally considered a monopoly. I'
That's why I posit that they're an oligarchy.
Only if there's no other options available can it be considered a monopoly; and that is why I say oligarchy.
Monopoly: noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Google doesn't "control" 90% of searches, 90% of people choose to use Google over other search engines. That is NOT a monopoly. If they bought up the other search engines to control the market then you'd have a point, but this is simply providing a better service so more consumers choose your product over other products that are available. If you own a market in your town and 90% of the locals choose your market over the other markets, that means your doing something right and patrons are choosing you over others, it's not because you bought out your competitors and limited their choices.
Still not able to validate your claim.
[deleted]
The article provides multiple evidence of Twitter letting violent tweets stand.
[deleted.]
Under the Sherman Antitrust Act if a company has a market share of greater than 75 percent they will probably be considered a monopoly.
Sealioning.
Quotes?
Here's what I actually said.
C'mon Sandy! You're cheating again!
You're using citations! That's just not done on NT;
Only paraphrases are allowed... and then only if there is considerable difference with the source material.
Otherwise, it's no "fun"...
In Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993) the Supreme Court said:
According to its authors, it was not intended to impact market gains obtained by honest means, by benefiting the consumers more than the competitors . Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts, another author of the Sherman Act, said the following:
At Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader 310 U. S. 469 , 310 U. S. 492 -93 and n. 15:
The law was enacted in the era of "trusts" and of "combinations" of businesses and of capital organized and directed to control of the market by suppression of competition in the marketing of goods and services, the monopolistic tendency of which had become a matter of public concern. The goal was to prevent restraints of free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services , all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury. For that reason the phrase "restraint of trade," which, as will presently appear, had a well understood meaning in common law, was made the means of defining the activities prohibited."
It also cites setting prices for products and services. I am unaware of Twitter, Google or Facebook setting a price for access to their platforms. Are you?
They are so confused about what a monopoly is.
Who is? Not me.
They're not making any money off of us.
Exactly.
Ma-bell [being most recent in this list], Rockefeller, Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Vanderbilt created monopolies. Most of which either undercut everyone else, bought out the competition, or simply were the only ones to have the technology... until they were forced to share it.
To add to your point, given these three are really in the advertising/information business, they are directly competing with each other and none of them are even close to 50% of the ad business much less the legal threshold of 75% (to even question if a company is a monopoly).
I agree, not even close to half. If they were, we wouldn't have subjected to all of those TV ads during the election.
Not at all. They used similar filters.
You'll get the same results, searching for "Trump could shoot someone and not lose a single supporter", on Google or Bing.
That doesn't mean they talk to each other; only that their algorithms are similar.
WHAT prices dennis? I have NEVER been charged a dime to use Facebook or Google. Have YOU?
Set prices for what?
A D V E R T I S I N G
Yes that is the business they are in. Those suggesting these companies are monopolies do not recognize that they are competitors with each holding far less than 50% market share (much less than the 75% legal threshold for consideration) in the advertisement / information business. And, as such, they do not set prices ... their prices are the consequence of good old fashioned supply and demand in a competitive market.
Not monopolies (see @1.2.146) but they are indeed very big and powerful entities.
I hope that TiG's reply explains just how ridiculous that comment is.
Well the GOP sure as hell can't make THAT argument. Trump's Golden Boy, Gym Johnson, just submitted a petition to have Liz Cheney removed from leadership because of her statement about Impeaching Trump.
So much for the GOP supporting 'free speech'.
I think he has both oars in the water.......
Q. what does the first amendment protect?
A. dominionist properties from being burnt to the ground with their memberships trapped inside.
Are you expressing a repressed inclination?
Oh, and a special thanks to Raven Wing! Without the post she made about how to post YouTube videos I never could have gotten this up. Thanks!
[ Raven deserves thanks for her helpful support. But note that new functionality has since been introduced. If you want to post a YouTube video you can do that with Fetch (Fetch Seed). Just paste in the URL for the YouTube video and Fetch will prepare the seed for you. ]
Yeah, I tried that but it didn't work. I'm sure it was something I did but don't know what it was. I'll try it again next time I post a YouTube vid.
Thanks.
Good seed.
This should be a duh. The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...". The texr itself says it applies to the government... and does not mention anyone else.
NT can put anything it pleases in the CoC, and then interpret it however it pleases. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Exactly right. Until the police show up to arrest you or the government fines you for something you type/say, your rights have not been violated. I get suspended here all the time, and never once have I made the idiotic claim that my first amendment rights were violated, because they weren't, at all.
You should check out Zuksam's post above. He makes some good points. One I think is relevant is should Twitter, NT and the rest be considered public squares? If so, what should that mean, legally?
Just read, it and there are a lot of good points. And I agree that the very last point is the most pertinent. Where does social media fall on the legal spectrum? Until that is settled I find it very hard to claim that Twitter, NT, or any other social media platform is subject to any sort of oversight or legal obligations that do not apply to every other business.
I could be banned right now, for no other reason than Sandy felt like it and my right were not violated, she broke no laws. Or at least none that I am aware of or have any interest in pursuing.
Actually, the only person who could ban you is me or Mac and we never do it without grounds. It is a rare occurrence here. That being said, you are right when you say that a private or public company is within their rights to ban someone from their site.
Hah, the point is that I could be banned just because, and that is that. I guess I could try to sue but that case wouldn't go anywhere since you didn't break the law.
That's true, but as you said it's the last part of zuksam's post that is most relevant. Where we seem to disagree is a businesses legal obligation concerning this issue. Are they acting as a type of public square? If so, Macy's, McDonalds, Chevron, Boing and pretty much any other business I can think of aren't really comparable to platforms like Twitter, Facebook or the rest, concerning what they do. Even such platforms would agree to the concept of free speech being vital to their business models. I think the public, and therefore the government, has a compelling interest in how that freedom of speech is protected.
I don't advocate that people can say whatever they want. No one has the right, in a civil society, to advocate for violence or incite others to do so. Nor do I think it necessary for some government agency to be created to monitor social media platforms. But I think people ought to have legal recourse in being censored by what may be arbitrary or biased decisions on the media platforms part. Since they essentially act as a public square, I think they must be subject to the First Amendment.
I don't know about you but I've had posts deleted in here by the moderators of some groups simply because they didn't like what I said. Not Perrie. Not a big deal but frustrating. A little different here though because for the most part we're a small group that uses this platform, compared to something like Twitter. Plus, we know Perrie, personally and because of that we can make an informed decision as to her trustworthiness. I think most of us trust her. But you can't do that on Twitter or Facebook. Some faceless person, or more likely, persons are making these decisions based on who knows what standard. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook have a huge impact on society precisely because they act as a public square. That is a lot of potential power in the hands of people who aren't really accountable to anything or anyone.
I suppose one possible answer is a government run social media site that would definitely fall under the First, but, it's the government. Probably cost ten times more than it needs to and so tangled in red tape it would be useless. But who knows.
Hey!
Occasionally I've heard people who violated the rules of a wesite argue that they can't be suspended, banned, etc for saying . . . just about anything...because supposedly it violates their "Right to Free Speech".
These people should be sent to a movie theatre ( a crowded on e if you cpuld find one now, what with the Virus and all)-- and be made to yell "FIRE"! Ansd see what happens next...
That would learn 'em! LOL
H hit the nail on the head at about the 2 minute mark. It is impossible for any private entity to violate anyone's first amendment rights because the first amendment has only ever applied to government entities. As a private company, Twitter, Google, Facebook or whoever cannot violate the US Constitution or Bill of Rights quite simply because neither document applies to them. The Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to government entities, hence why I can kick you out of my house if you say something I don't like, or Twitter can suspend you if you violate their user agreement (or frankly for any reason they want) and it is not illegal.
And this dude is exactly right, what the president is saying and wants to do would actually be a first amendment violation. That would be the government violating the rights of a company or person by requiring private entities and individuals to or write or, as he puts it, carry the governments message. That is state media, that is what happens in authoritarian nations.
I'm glad to see our progressive friends championing originalism. Seems like just a few weeks ago such analysis was the gravest threat to the Republic in it's history. And it's doubly nice to see the people who supported banning books from being published in the run up to the election. Better late then never to for the opponents of the Citizens United to realize how deluded they were.
A cynic might say the new found support for the originalist interpretation of the First Amendment has more to do with it finally dawning on progressives that massive mega national corporations are their allies and whose ideological cheerleading and gatekeeping provides them incalculable benefits and their constantly changing views depend on whatever the perceived advantage of the day is, but I'll be charitable today and assume they've discovered a principle.
I haven't seen any progressives around here saying anything different from what this dude is saying. I am sure there are some idiots out there who think being suspended on social media is somehow a first amendment violation, but they don't seem to hang out here.
Who said a book should be banned from being published? And what book?
It is entirely possible to ascribe to this view of the first amendment, the only one where you don't have to start making shit up or adding things in to make it say what you want, and be opposed to the Citizens United ruling. Thinking to government should not mandate what someone has to say, or prevent them from saying/writing something (and peaceful assembly etc.) does not mean you cannot think that there should be limits and rules as to how political campaigns are funded.
I have always said a company can ban, censor, refuse to publish or whatever and it is in no way a first amendment violation. My view of the first amendment stated above, and mirroring what this guy is talking about has always been my view of the first amendment.
I haven't seen any progressives around here saying anything different from what this dude is saying.
Then I guess you haven't been paying attention. There's been plenty of hysterics from progressives about how decisions like Citizens United destroyed the Republic or claim that hate speech needs to be criminalized. Or did that all that go down the memory hole? Originalist analysis like that presented in this video (the great liberal boogeyman of 2020) is, of course, incompatible with those things.
ho said a book should be banned from being published? And what book?
Obama's deputy solicitor general arguing before the Supreme Court to uphold Congress's power to regulate political speech. It was a hypothetical question about whether political books could be banned under McCain Feingold. the Obama administration claimed they could.
t amendment, the only one where you don't have to start making shit up or adding things in to make it say what you want, and be opposed to the Citizens United ruling.
No. it's not. Citizens United literally involves a law passed by Congress that bans speech.
My view of the first amendment stated above, and mirroring what this guy is talking about has always been my view of the first amendment.
Then you don't seem to understand what's being discussed. The argument is premised on the originalist reading of the First amendment, which of course, liberal only advocate for when it's to their political advantage.
Oh I definitely think Citizens United has been damaging and made the number one priority of politicians kissing the asses of those who can give them the most money. Frankly all federal campaigns should be funded with federal $s and it should be illegal to take any outside contributions. You get x amount to use on your campaign, and that is it. As far as hate speech being made illegal, I disagree with that. You shouldn't go to prison for it but you absolutely can be fired for it, suspended/banned from social media, or generally get your ass kicked.
And as I said, I am sure there are a few out there, I haven't really seen them, but the majority of progressives here have the same interpretation of the first amendment. Again, thinking there should be rules governing campaign finance does not mean you have some alternate definition of the first amendment.
I would have to read the question and argument before passing judgement.
Yes. It is. Citizens United only makes sense if you in fact ascribe to the notion that a corporation is a person and that money is speech. I disagree with both counts, thus I can be opposed to the Citizens United ruling AND think that the first amendment only applies to what the government cannot do in regards to speech, assembly, practice of religion etc.
We are discussing who the first amendment applies to and why a corporation cannot possibly violate someone's first amendment rights. You may be talking about something else, in which case try getting on the same page. And it isn't an originalist reading, it is just reading. The first words are "Congress shall make no law", it literally does not mention any other individual or entity other than Congress, thus it does not apply to anyone or anything else. A company cannot violate someone's first amendment rights and neither can an individual UNLESS they are acting on behalf of or at the direction of the federal or a state government.
And again, for the most part I have seen liberals around here consistently agreeing with the above interpretation for quite some time. Of course there are outliers but stop with the bullshit that the majority of us change our interpretation to fit the situation.
Well, they don't hang out there...after they've been banned!
But over mym many years online, from time to time I've seen people who insisted that because they "Had the right to free speech"they could say whatever they want. (In rare cases they verbally attacked the site ownder or moderator).
But then again...there's no cure for "Stuck on stupid"!
Unlike Conservatives of course...who would never, ever do something like that!
/sarc
Citizens United is far more complicated than that. It is primarily about campaign finance restrictions. We have laws that limit the amount any one person can give to a political campaign. We as a nation decided on those laws because we understood that by not having some limits the richest and most powerful among us would be able to drown out all other politicians by simply dumping billions into the campaign of the politician they wanted elected, and of course that would be effectively the same as buying your own personal politician to pass legislation for a single donor instead of having to work for the people. With Citizens United it legalized that and now the politicians with donors who have the deepest pockets almost always win and of course are the most beholden to those corporate interests. Corporations don't spend millions on campaigns out of altruism, they expect, and almost always get, something in return on their investment. This is now the political system we have in America and it will continue to be that way until someone with the will and backbone challenges it and is able to win against the behemoth of multinational corporations who can afford to buy politicians.
In regards to the discussion in this seed, Citizens United has very little to do with it since Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and Google aren't simply banning political speech or only giving (donating) their platforms only to politicians they support and expect a return on that investment. When you think about it, if their platforms use is considered a form of monetary donation to a party or politician then the SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United would in fact protect their right to donate as much as they want and allow them to only support one party or politician over another. But this issue is really more about the right of a company to ban or refuse to allow their platforms to be used specifically for violent hate speech. It does not matter whether the violent hate speech is directed at politicians or that some of the hate speech is political in nature, it is because it is violent hate speech that they are objecting to it.
Quotes, Sean?
I don't see anything wrong with his reasoning. I wonder if this will get through to Trump sycophants.
I wonder if this will get through to Trump sycophants.
Will anything..... short of a visit by law enforcement? Even then.....?
The sycophants now are, I suspect, an increasingly smaller minority. My guess is that Trump has lost a ton of supporters who use their brains. The sycophants (those who simply accept whatever he states as truth) are likely beyond hope. Maybe if he was caught on video bragging about how easily he can manipulate his supporters because he is so smart ... Even then, would that actually sink in?
For some, probably not... sadly. A little like Stockholm Syndrome maybe?
It would still be "Fake News"..... "Fabricated Lies"...... I think they are so far down the rabbit hole now, there is no climbing out. Someone else will take over for Qanon... and then who knows what will happen.
I think you are correct. I am watching one individual in particular to see if there are any signs of any of this sinking in.
I am watching one individual in particular to see if there are any signs of any of this sinking in.
Here on NT or in your private life...?
I'm doing the same to see if self correction is possible with some family members. The problem is that they've been self-medicating with Fox and Brietbart so long, I think it's going to be a life long addiction. Interventions are not going to work.
I was referring to here but I have one in particular in real life who is also a bellwether for sycophants.
In some cases, that might depend upon whether or not the law they've violated is a Federal offense...or not.
That arrest might not be such a big thing actually if its a federal offense...because then Trump could pardon them.
(As people like Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort can tell you...)
I used to wonder how some o0f the right wing people I know could have such a distorted view of reality. And then I started watching Fox and I realized. if you only get your news from one source, you'll believe everything they say.
I also spent some time reading Stormfront for a while...(but that's another topic
Agreed. Not equivalent at all.
Ok, this is the second redneck in a week that gave me hope. Haha
I think he is right. Also think he needs a heater in his garage/shed.
This guy and Trae Crowder. Two of my favorite redneck guys. And yeah, when you can see his breath on the air, it's time for some heat.
I love Trae Crowder. He is straight-up huckleberry hilarious.
Jae is very good, too.
What I like about him is that he plants his feet, takes a stand, and articulates where he's coming from and why. He's doesn't suffer fools. He cites clear and cogent reasons why Trump and his followers disgust him.
Jae Crowder
I meant the 'this guy' part of that comment.
Trae is AWESOME in a totally different kind of way.