Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media (Read 473 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7901
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Oct 24th, 2018 at 1:47pm
Print Post  
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.   (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck)

The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets.

That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power...

All of these privately owned social media outlets should be immune to anti-1st Amendment lawsuits, imo.

These are Private companies, and should have the freedom to censor any material they want.

Any privately owned newspaper editor has the unquestioned freedom to censor Op-Ed material, right?

Why should a privately owned social-media outlet be any different?   

This seems like a no-brainer to me.  I cant imagine why the Supreme Court was called to make a ruling on this matter.   

A 7th-grader should be able to rule on this.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #1 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 2:39pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 1:47pm:
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.   (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck)

The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets.

That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/supreme-court-case-could-decide-fb-twitter-power...

All of these privately owned social media outlets should be immune to anti-1st Amendment lawsuits, imo.

These are Private companies, and should have the freedom to censor any material they want.

Any privately owned newspaper editor has the unquestioned freedom to censor Op-Ed material, right?

Why should a privately owned social-media outlet be any different?   

This seems like a no-brainer to me.  I cant imagine why the Supreme Court was called to make a ruling on this matter.   

A 7th-grader should be able to rule on this.
The problem Chief, is that "progressives" have been conflating privately owned businesses that "serve" the public with things like the State DMV for many years.

They started out using racism as their wedge, claiming that if your business was "open to the public" you had to serve everyone. They have expanded the conflation of the two ideas private/public to sex/sexual orientation, making the question turn on "discrimination" in general.

The idea has been to establish that private businesses are not allowed to "discriminate" for any reason, not because of race or sex or sexual orientation or political beliefs, maybe even religion, and that any halfway plausible indication that you have discriminated against anyone in your private business/private organization means you've committed a crime against someone's "civil rights".

If Facebook bans you for posting your National Socialist opinions, they have violated your right to post your shit on a "public" forum. The fact that Facebook is a privately owned company doesn't matter, "Open for business to the public" means you are now a "public" organization, no longer a private business.

The long term "progressive" plan is to have bureaucrats oversee everyone's business, i.e. control it for the 'greater good'.

It will be interesting to see how the S.Ct. handles it. They too often seem to think that S.Ct. precedent was created by God and they aren't allowed to change it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7901
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #2 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 3:02pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 2:39pm:
If Facebook bans you for posting your National Socialist opinions, they have violated your right to post your shit on a "public" forum. The fact that Facebook is a privately owned company doesn't matter, "Open for business to the public" means you are now a "public" organization, no longer a private business.

The Op-Ed section of the newspaper is a public forum also.

If the newspaper editor refuses to print my National Socialist opinions, can I sue him?   The answer is no,  I cannot.  Because no tort occurred.

Same thing applies with Facebook or Twitter.  They are under no obligation to "print" material they feel is unsuitable for their particular privately owned media outlet.

A Jewish baker cannot be forced to bake a swastika cake for the Annual National Socialist Convention.

Jeff wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 2:39pm:
It will be interesting to see how the S.Ct. handles it.

I would hope they rule in favor of the Private media companies.  Because if they dont, that would open up a huge can of worms for other Private companies who maintain social standards or religious beliefs.

If one of my employees shows up to work wearing a pussy-hat (or a MAGA hat), I should be able to tell him/her to take it off or be fired.

I don't want him/her to sue me for violation of free speech.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4209
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #3 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 3:47pm
Print Post  
When asked, Zuckerberg refused to say whether Facebook is a neutral public platform.  Supposedly, Facebook is protected from libel lawsuits because they only host content from others so they are not responsible for it.

If they want to pick and choose what content they allow they cannot claim to be a neutral public platform that's not responsible for what is posted.  In the case of Facebooks' treatment of Diamond and Silk, they are guilty of discrimination because those two were targeted because they were black Trump supporters.

I'm not saying the government should step in.  As far as I know Zuckerberg doesn't get any government subsidies so let him run his website however he wants.
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #4 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 4:36pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 3:02pm:
The Op-Ed section of the newspaper is a public forum also.

If the newspaper editor refuses to print my National Socialist opinions, can I sue him?   The answer is no,  I cannot.  Because no tort occurred.

Same thing applies with Facebook or Twitter. 
The fact that the case is before the Supreme Court means that quite a few lower court judges have disagreed with you.

Any judge appointed by Obama probably thinks Facebook must be controlled to protect the common good.

"Progressives", including "progressive" judges, have declared war. For instance, lower courts all across the U.S. , courts with "progressive" judges, have been ignoring what the Supreme Court said in the Heller decision ever since the Supreme Court ruled on Heller's complaint.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #5 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 4:40pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 3:47pm:
When asked, Zuckerberg refused to say whether Facebook is a neutral public platform. 
If I created and owned Facebook, I'd say "crappity smack no, I'm not going to let Neo-Nazis or Communists or Anarchists use my forum for political purposes. They are welcome to use it as a social site, which is what I created it as and intend to keep it as. They can take their nasty political opinions elsewhere, or start their own site. As I said, crappity smack them. Edit: And BTW, I'm a libertarian."

Edit: In keeping with my usual double standards, I will welcome libertarian political discussions on my website. Kiss
« Last Edit: Oct 24th, 2018 at 6:29pm by Jeff »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #6 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 6:28pm
Print Post  
I was thinking Chief, without armies of bureaucrats constantly monitoring all the public platforms and outlets, there will be no way to ensure that no one in America is ever treated in any discriminatory fashion...

If you want to communicate privately with anyone, you better not do it on a public platform like Facebook... Not in 21st Century America anyway... Private communication these days means having a Cone of Silence like Maxwell Smart had, or working for the government, where anything you say will be kept secret, often even in the face of FOIA court orders and special investigations into whatever the heck it was you did and said that the people who paid you aren't entitled to know about. Cheesy

I really hoped for better...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7901
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #7 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 6:54pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 6:28pm:
Any judge appointed by Obama probably thinks Facebook must be controlled to protect the common good.


It occurred to me that libertariansforum.com is a perfect example of a public forum being moderated (and censored) by the private owner (Land of Freedom).

Land of Freedom has full control of the content on this forum. He can edit, he can delete, he can ban members.  He owns it.

Can an ex-member sue Land of Freedom for being smacked with the ban-hammer?   Of course not - that would be absurd.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter should be (privately) moderated as well without fear of frivolous 1st Amendment lawsuits.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35609
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #8 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 7:17pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 6:54pm:
It occurred to me that libertariansforum.com is a perfect example of a public forum being moderated (and censored) by the private owner (Land of Freedom).

Land of Freedom has full control of the content on this forum. He can edit, he can delete, he can ban members.  He owns it.

Can an ex-member sue Land of Freedom for being smacked with the ban-hammer?   Of course not, That would be absurd.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter should be (privately) moderated as well without fear of frivolous 1st Amendment lawsuits.
Moderate your forum or don't, it's your choice because it's your forum.

One of the "progressive" arguments is that you bear responsibility for what others might say on your forum, that if somebody like Don_G comes on your forum and expresses racist opinions, and the lizard has it's feelings hurt because Don_G is claiming that lizards are a lower form of life, not actually human, then it's your fault, because you provided the forum that allowed the hurtful things to be said.

It's insane and irrational, but it's made it's way to the Supreme Court... Shocked
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7901
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #9 - Oct 24th, 2018 at 7:26pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 7:17pm:
It's insane and irrational, but it's made it's way to the Supreme Court... Shocked

We agree, then:

SkyChief wrote on Oct 24th, 2018 at 1:47pm:
  I cant imagine why the Supreme Court was called to make a ruling on this matter.   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy