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 ... 3 4 [5] 6  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media (Read 464 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7879
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #40 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 12:34pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 7:42am:
Isn't that the crux of the case before the S.Ct. that the force of government should be used to control what is said or not said on social media?

It is.

The Supreme Court looked the other way with the PATRIOT Act in Oct, 2001.  They failed to shoot it down even though [the Act] was in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

The hope with Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck is that the Court will violate the 1st Amendment and prevent social media platforms from censoring material which they see unfit to publish.  Facebook, Twitter and Google will be open to lawsuits by censored users.

I don't think SCOTUS will rule to force net neutrality.  If they do, we're in serious trouble.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #41 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:17pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 12:34pm:
It is.

The Supreme Court looked the other way with the PATRIOT Act in Oct, 2001.  They failed to shoot it down even though [the Act] was in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

The hope with Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck is that the Court will violate the 1st Amendment and prevent social media platforms from censoring material which they see unfit to publish.  Facebook, Twitter and Google will be open to lawsuits by censored users.

I don't think SCOTUS will rule to force net neutrality.  If they do, we're in serious trouble.
Congress enacted a law that specifically says that owners of open platforms are not responsible for what is said on their platforms, but that hasn't stopped Executive Departments from prosecuting people for what is said on their open platforms... I guess that's why the S.Ct. is hearing the case. You are open to lawsuits if you ban speech you don't like on your platform, and also if you allow speech that someone else doesn't like.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7879
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #42 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 5:14pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 3:17pm:
... I guess that's why the S.Ct. is hearing the case. You are open to lawsuits if you ban speech you don't like on your platform, and also if you allow speech that someone else doesn't like.

Yes.

I think the makeup of the current Supreme Court is much better than the one in 2001 that failed to stop the PATRIOT Act.

I'm pretty sure the Court will rule in favor of Manhattan Community Access Corp, and declare them immune from lawsuits if they decide to not air (some) material they deem inappropriate.

Deedee Halleck and Jesus Melendez filed a lawsuit in 2012 on grounds that Manhattan Community Access Corp is operating as a "state actor" - i.e., acting on behalf of the governemnt, and therefore should be forced to air ALL material which is submitted.

That's absurd, IMO.  Hopefully SCOTUS sees it that way too.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #43 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 5:18pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 5:14pm:
Yes.

I think the makeup of the current Supreme Court is much better than the one in 2001 that failed to stop the PATRIOT Act.

I'm pretty sure the Court will rule in favor of Manhattan Community Access Corp, and declare them immune from lawsuits if they decide to not air (some) material if they disagree with the message.

Deedee Halleck and Jesus Melendez filed a lawsuit in 2012 on grounds that Manhattan Community Access Corp is operating as a "state actor" - i.e., acting on behalf of the governemnt, and therefore should be forced to air ALL material which is submitted.

Which is absurd, IMO.
If Mahattan Community Access Corp. is government supported, or even government regulated, the claim that they are a "state actor" is valid.

Regulated businesses don't seem to very often act on my behalf. Cry

Edit: Here's some of CAC's puffery-

https://www.guidestar.org/profile/13-3625426

They sound like a government actor to me. Shocked

Scroll down, learn about the people who run the CAC and how much they earn, and who directs the corporation....  Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7876
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #44 - Oct 30th, 2018 at 9:26pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 7:42am:
It's appropriate to meet force with force, but the law says the force you use must be proportionate, except for the exceptions, like where feeble old ladies are justified in shooting powerful young men who attack them, even if the attacker is unarmed. (I've told you this before...)

Using force to prevent theft is appropriate. If having your camel stolen means you will almost certainly die in the desert, using force, even deadly force, to prevent the theft of your camel is appropriate. In most cases of theft, using deadly force is not appropriate, although it's fine to try to catch and restrain the thief and turn him/her/it over to the police. (I've told you this before too.)


Very good. So let's say I won't die if my camel is stolen, but I'm in the middle of the Vulcan desert and a frail old Human female tries to steal my camel, which for the purposes of this hypothetical is small and can only take one person.

She will die if she doesn't get the camel, but I only might die. Can I stop her? Let's take your list to its ultimate logical conclusion: She won't stop. She keeps trying and she'll make me incapacitate her at least. I can give her the old nerve pinch, but she'll die in the desert. Do I have to just let her take it?

Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 7:42am:
What are you really looking for here lizard? A claim that it's appropriate for governments to use force to require certain types of political speech?, or to ban certain types of political speech? It's not. In the U.S. as you know, the government is prohibited from doing that.


Get your facts straight. It's YouTube trying to ban speech and the government is trying to stop them. Should they be allowed to ban speech? Yes, because their rights to their private property and their platform are absolute.

If you keep picking away at my rights, and telling me my rights aren't absolute, and that I must sacrifice here and there and everywhere so we can have taxes and old people and schools, fine. But I would like YouTube to make a sacrifice as well.

Just FYI, I am not a conservative, and that's who they're banning. I want everyone to be allowed to speak freely and be heard.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #45 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 7:12am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 9:26pm:
Very good. So let's say I won't die if my camel is stolen, but I'm in the middle of the Vulcan desert and a frail old Human female tries to steal my camel, which for the purposes of this hypothetical is small and can only take one person.

She will die if she doesn't get the camel, but I only might die. Can I stop her?
Why not offer her a camel ride out of the desert?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #46 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 7:21am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 9:26pm:
Get your facts straight. It's YouTube trying to ban speech and the government is trying to stop them. Should they be allowed to ban speech? Yes, because their rights to their private property and their platform are absolute.

Their right to free speech is no more absolute than anyone else's.

It's not YouTube that's the subject of the case before the S.Ct., and what applies to private platforms doesn't apply to "state actors." "State actors" must offer neutral platforms, private individuals and their companies need not.

Rights of free speech (and property) are not protected when government says you must allow those with whom you disagree to use your platform.

If Sack decides to start an internet forum "For Anarchists Only", and bans you from his forum, is it your contention that he should be forced by the government to allow you to advocate for tyrannical government on his anarchist forum?

Have you come up with a short list of monopolies that existed without government help?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7879
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #47 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 12:07pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 30th, 2018 at 5:18pm:
If Mahattan Community Access Corp. is government supported, or even government regulated, the claim that they are a "state actor" is valid.

Regulated businesses don't seem to very often act on my behalf. Cry

They sound like a government actor to me. Shocked

Your argument has made me change my position (and my prediction of pending SCOTUS ruling)!

MCAC is a "state actor", and as a public forum they are compelled to present all views.

I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of the plaintiff(s), Deedee Halleck and Jesus Melendez.

It took four years, but you finally changed my mind about something. 

Well done, Sir!     Smiley       Smiley

Still, This [ruling] should not impact the censorship policies of Twitter, facebook, Google, et. al...   They are NOT "state actors" and therefore should be free to edit, delete, and/or censor any material they deem unsuitable for their respective platforms.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7876
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #48 - Oct 31st, 2018 at 9:45pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 7:12am:
Why not offer her a camel ride out of the desert?


Please read the hypothetical before responding. Do I have to give her the camel, or not?

May I stop her with force when she tries to steal it, or not?

If you can't answer plainly it just shows libertarianism is unworkable.

Jeff wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 7:21am:
Rights of free speech (and property) are not protected when government says you must allow those with whom you disagree to use your platform.


That's correct! But see how you go back to rights, rights, rights when it's a business?

Jeff wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 7:21am:
If Sack decides to start an internet forum "For Anarchists Only", and bans you from his forum, is it your contention that he should be forced by the government to allow you to advocate for tyrannical government on his anarchist forum?


My contention is nothing. I have no contentions. If you want me to have my rights sacrificed for the greater good, and you want YouTube's rights absolute, just say so and I'll support that.

I keep bringing it up when you say my rights aren't absolute, because you clearly think rich people and businesses have absolute rights.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35454
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS To Rule On 1st Amendment Case Regarding Social Media
Reply #49 - Nov 1st, 2018 at 8:04am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 31st, 2018 at 9:45pm:
Please read the hypothetical before responding. Do I have to give her the camel, or not?

May I stop her with force when she tries to steal it, or not?


Kill her if you want to. If she has a gun and gets the drop on you, she'll probably shoot you and take your camel. Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 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