Supreme Court set to decide major First Amendment cases for online speech

[Endymio]

Meanwhile, in reality, Section 2 of the California Declaration of Rights specifically codifies freedom of speech not just for individuals but for publishers and ‘wire service’.

Unless you say or publish something the state of California disagrees with -- then your free speech rights are out the window.

In the UC School System, for instance, university students are told that "misgendering" someone, disagreeing with their official views on gender or racial equality, or even something as innocuous as stating that you believe job success should be based on merit, or asking someone what country they're from -- all can be considered hate speech or a "microaggression", and be the basis for punishment up to and including suspension. Even if the speech in question occurred off campus or in a so-called public "free speech" online forum.

 

[Beerfloat]

I really dont care about what code California has because I have never been more tight assed than I had been in my trip to San Fran. On the east coast I'm fairly liberal. I had no idea how "conservative" I was until I visited San Fran for a few weeks and had to watch everything I said.

Or what, the SFPD or CBI come haul you away?

Don't be silly. The fact that you made people uncomfortable is a completely different matter.

 

[Endymio]

The crux is that the states are wrong, they can not compel publishers, or platforms (not actually a legal term), or anyone to propagate anything. That has nothing to do with immunity for what they DO propagate.

100% false. These platforms are arguing they have a free-speech right to control what appears on their platforms. Yet their Sec 230 immunity is based on their claim that they don't control what appears on their platforms, and thus aren't responsible for it.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

 

[yRaz]

Or what, the SFPD or CBI come haul you away?

Don't be silly. The fact that you made people uncomfortable is a completely different matter.

It's not THAT I made people uncomfortable, it's WHY I made them uncomfortable. Perfectly normal conversation on the east coast is apparently completely unacceptable on the west. It was a very bizarre and also frustrating experience. Since I was there on business I had to be very careful about everything I said and the politics added a new layer I had to watch. I was sent there because I'm considered liberal by east coast standards.

 

[Endymio]

It IS an open and shut case. No one can be compelled to propagate speech. That’s the First Amendment, and as you say, it rules.

Never read that Constitution, eh? It says no such thing. Which is good-- because publishers have been forced to "propagate speech" for many decades in the US. Radio stations, for instance, are required to broadcast a certain number of public service announcements, certain local newspapers are required to carry legal notices, and cell phone carriers in most areas must broadcast "Amber alerts" and other emergency messages.

 

[Beerfloat]

100% false. These platforms are arguing they have a free-speech right to control what appears on their platforms. Yet their Sec 230 immunity is based on their claim that they don't control what appears on their platforms, and thus aren't responsible for it.

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Oh you most certainly can. Platforms do not need section 230 to be allowed to control their content. That was always their inalienable right already.

Please do not conjure up false dichotomies to justify your prefered outcome.

 

[yRaz]

Oh you most certainly can. Platforms do not need section 230 to be allowed to control their content. That was always their inalienable right already.

Please do not conjure up false dichotomies to justify your prefered outcome.

So Christopher Poole, the creator of 4chan, was one accused during a TED talk of trying to spread child pornography.

But at a certain point, these things become more of a public utility than a service that we agree to. When does that happen? I have no idea, but it should be defined for all of our benefit

 

[Beerfloat]

Never read that Constitution, eh? It says no such thing. Which is good-- because publishers have been forced to "propagate speech" for many decades in the US. Radio stations, for instance, are required to broadcast a certain number of public service announcements, certain local newspapers are required to carry legal notices, and cell phone carriers in most areas must broadcast "Amber alerts" and other emergency messages.

Oh I've read it. And the idea that 'free speech' means 'unforced speech' just as much as it means 'you can say what you want' is not at all controversial in legal doctrine.

As for your exceptions, they are just that. It really should not be news to anyone that free speech is not unlimited. There are very very narrowly defined exceptions, and everyone knows it.

 

[Endymio]

Oh you most certainly can [ave it both ways]. Platforms do not need section 230 to be allowed to control their content.

I don't know much simpler I can explain it. Yes, platforms do not need Sec 230 to control their content. They do need it, though, to have legal immunity for what they publish.

In this "free speech" case, these platforms argue they have that control. In the case of Sec 230 immunity, they argue they lack that control. No-- they can't have it both ways.

 

[Beerfloat]

Unless you say or publish something the state of California disagrees with -- then your free speech rights are out the window.

In the UC School System, for instance, university students are told that "misgendering" someone, disagreeing with their official views on gender or racial equality, or even something as innocuous as stating that you believe job success should be based on merit, or asking someone what country they're from -- all can be considered hate speech or a "microaggression", and be the basis for punishment up to and including suspension. Even if the speech in question occurred off campus or in a so-called public "free speech" online forum.

Ok, I'm starting to think you harbor a basic misunderstanding of freedom of speech. It's not freedom from consequences, remember?

 

[Beerfloat]

I don't know much simpler I can explain it. Yes, platforms do not need Sec 230 to control their content. They do need it, though, to have legal immunity for what they publish.

In this "free speech" case, these platforms argue they have that control. In the case of Sec 230 immunity, they argue they lack that control. No-- they can't have it both ways.

No, you *want* it to not be both ways but it is. Still.

Which is why these red states keep harassing private businesses. Their arguments have no merit whatsoever, but with this activist Supreme Court, who knows what nonsense might get traction in the future?

 

[Endymio]

Oh I've read it. And the idea that 'free speech' means 'unforced speech' just as much as it means 'you can say what you want' is not at all controversial in legal doctrine.

Oops! The Federal government has for decades been forcing broadcasters to carry ads from political candidates:

"....The equal-time rule specifies that American radio and television broadcast stations must provide equivalent access to competing political candidates. This means, for example, that if a station broadcasts a message by a candidate in prime time, it must offer the same amount of time on the same terms to an opposing candidate.[1]..."

Ok, I'm starting to think you harbor a basic misunderstanding of freedom of speech. It's not freedom from consequences, remember?

Oops again! If the "consequence" of free speech is punishment by a government entity -- then that speech isn't free. This is about as basic as it gets.

 

[ZedRM]

Eh, you sign a contract(EULA) accepting the terms of what you can and cannot talk about. It's not like 4chan where you don't agree to anything before posting.

Everything you said is factually incorrect.

Contract terms do not and can not over-ride or supersede statutory rights or liberties. THAT is factual. Your opinions of such are of no consequence.

 

[nnguy2]

Lol us techies are now online legal scholars

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Publisher or platform is a distinction without difference within the context of the Constitution.

It IS an open and shut case. No one can be compelled to propagate speech. That’s the First Amendment, and as you say, it rules.

It may not be a distinction under the Constitution, but it IS a distinction under section 230a. Something these "platforms" have been abusing for years. They've been hiding behind the "well we are a private company therefore we dont have to follow the first amendment" excuse for too long.

Its spelled out pretty clearly, if you want to censor your users and control what is on your platform, you are a publisher, and you are now responsible for content your users post. Claiming to be an open platform but then censoring people for political opinions is a blatant disregard for the First amendment, and one that should have been clamped down on years ago.

As a suggestion, these companies could always move to, say, Europe if they didnt want to deal with this. But they LOVE to use the first amendment when it benefits them.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Contract terms do not and can not over-ride or supersede statutory rights or liberties. THAT is factual. Your opinions of such are of no consequence.

Exactly. If a EULA had that kind of power, then the government would effectively have no role in society.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Lol us techies are now online legal scholars

Just like you're an expert just because you know some things about computers?

 

[hahahanoobs]

Oops! The Federal government has for decades been forcing broadcasters to carry ads from political candidates:

"....The equal-time rule specifies that American radio and television broadcast stations must provide equivalent access to competing political candidates. This means, for example, that if a station broadcasts a message by a candidate in prime time, it must offer the same amount of time on the same terms to an opposing candidate.[1]..."


Oops again! If the "consequence" of free speech is punishment by a government entity -- then that speech isn't free. This is about as basic as it gets.

All I get from your posts is you people want the freedom to act like clowns online for clicks with no reprecussions. Take the government and Sec. 230 out of all of this and do your trash talking in the streets away from your safe space at home like normal people.

 

[Endymio]

All I get from your posts is you people want the freedom to act like clowns online for clicks with no reprecussions.

Then you failed to understand some of the larger words used. These services can be publishers -- who control their content and thus take responsibility for it -- or they can be providers -- who don't control their content and thus can't be sued for what they publish. They can't be both at once.

 

[Beerfloat]

Contract terms do not and can not over-ride or supersede statutory rights or liberties. THAT is factual. Your opinions of such are of no consequence.

More irrelevant hand waving. Your claim that ‘free speech laws apply’ to platforms ‘open to the public’ was nonsensical, because free speech laws exist to prohibit government from imposing restrictions. They have no bearing on the interaction between private parties.

 

[Beerfloat]

Lol us techies are now online legal scholars

The state of discourse is just terrible. Most of it is simply noise, at best barely relevant but more often than not putting profound misunderstanding on display.