What so many people get wrong about 'freedom of speech' in America
The first amendment is to protect people from (the government/Congress) exercising their speech in public arenas, i.e. Government owned arenas. If speech were protected everywhere at anytime, trespassing on private property(including businesses) could not be a law created and enforced.
The argument to protect speech in private arenas falls deaf on me because no one is saying that people can not create their own platforms to share their vision/speech and create their own communities. That takes hard work, a good message/product and time.
The argument, broken down, says that any idea by 1 person, no matter how maliciously intended, can exploit the work of companies like FB, twitter, youtube and access their user base EVEN WHEN those companies want to have 0 association with that person.
It is the equivalent of dressed KKK members attending a Bulls game and saying the Bulls have to let them remain all throughout the stands for the entire game, no matter what they are chanting.
'Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'
It's good to see you writing quality posts with a message again.
It's good to see you
Writing quality posts with
A message again.
- themightyvolcano
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Sick haiku bro!
Very well written and informative article!
Hi, as a delegator to MAP Rewarder, you have won a free upvote in our MAP Rewarder Free Upvote & Crypto Video of the Day (Joseph Lubin) - 10 May 2019.
The free upvote of 10% was worth approximately 0.2445 STEEM and equivalent to an extra 240% of the delegator's recent weekly payout! (In this case, adjusted for new delegated SP)
A comment was upvoted because all current posts have already been rewarded.
Congratulations!
MAP Rewarder Makes Delegating More Rewarding!
Say whatever you want to say anywhere or everywhere else like social medias. Just don't go to someone property and talk trash
You are back!!!!
Yes, with everyday post
Hi @gank. I'm not exactly clear on your argument here, so please feel free to correct me. The way I see it (under the current situation - that is, when comparing, let's say, Steemit to Facebook) - ALL of the argument of ethics is NULLIFIED (in my opinion) once manipulative tactics are used by the corporations in question. I actually listened to Jack from Twitter on the Joe Rogan show, and OVERALL found his perspective on the censorship issue to be REASONABLY sound at its essence. That is, that he is constantly ADJUSTING the Twitter policies in light of new evidence of what works and what doesn't work, in terms of fairness). After listening to him , I TRULY BELIEVE that his INTENTION is in the right place, and I WOULD support a certain degree of "administrative control" based on the "private property" concept ONLY IF platforms like Twitter, #CA'sbook, etc were not PROVEN to have used (and/or CURRENTLY BE using) algorithms which are POLITICALLY biased, and NOT biased based primarily on protecting the PHYSICAL safety (and basic civil rights) of users. This past week I launched a FORMAL boycott of Facebook, with an final post announcement the commencement of my boycott, and have now begun the process of sending a few minutes daily deleting ALL content I have put up on Facebook over the past decade. This is in line with my argument that these private companies DO NOT have the right now manipulate people. Protecting people's CONSTITUTIONAL rights is okay with me for private organizations, but manipulation is NOT. The right to not be DECEIVED is also a Consititutional right, and at the core of ALL of other basic rights granted by the constitution. Hope this comment is well received, and that I have not misinterpreted your point...
My argument is that our 'freedom of speech' is protected from Government interference in public domains. No one in Government has tried to silence Alex Jone's voice. Just like no one in Government has said he can not build his vision, whether in real life or online. Businesses, some publicly traded, decided it was in their businesses best interests to have zero association with him, and others.
Private entities such as facebook and twitter enforcing their rules so that they can fulfill their businesses core values by 'refusing service' to customers is no different than your local bar refusing service or you asking someone to leave your property.
To flip things around, should the NRA be forced to allow any and every protester that wants to attend their gatherings and speeches, so they can voice their 'free speech', ultimately disrupting nonstop.
What would happen next?
My only rebuttle to your point (which I overall agree with, by the way) is that there is convincing evidence that the government is "covertly" involved in influencing these "private" corporations. I am simply objecting to the issue of subversion.
Hey @gank. I mostly agree with you. A private business is allowed to associate or not associate with whoever they choose...to a point. I don't have the right to come in your place of business and start yelling about whatever I want. I think the real issue here with places like FB, twitter, YouTube, etc, is discrimination. They claim to be a platform rather than a media outlet with editors.
At the moment, these social media sites have no objective standard. They simply say they don't allow hate speech. They then define hate speech as anything they personally don't like. Sense we know these sites lean far to the left (by their own admission), it's funny how anyone on the right is deemed hateful for simply giving their perspective, while those on the left can say almost anything with zero recourse.
When asked about an objective standard, they always refuse to give one. So when you see them almost always banning or punishing people from only 1 side of the political isle, it becomes a clear case of discrimination.
Second, if these platforms are in fact legally viewed as"platforms " (which they claim to be), that means they can not edit out content, unless legally required to do so (similar to a phone company).
The minute a company starts to edit its content, they are by definition no longer a platform. They become a media outlet responsible for the content on their site. This is the last thing any social media company wants.
So you see, it's not quite as simple as you're making it. These social media companies want all the benefits of being a platform, while still being able to edit out the political content they don't like. It doesn't work that way. Either you're a platform, or a media outlet...you can't be both.
Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as that reason is not discriminatory in nature.
Twitter, favors the right, others probably favor the left. They all have the right to run their businesses how they see fit.
You have a few things confused. The second you hit enter, it is not your content, it is owned by FB/twitter etc. They are editing their content.
The other thing is that 'Freedom of Speech' protects your speech from Government interference, not from social and business backlash.
It blows my mid how many people have so little understanding of what Freedom of Speech actually means.
Who in Government has silenced Alex Jones' voice? Who in Government has said he can not build his vision and empire? Publicly owned companies not wanting to be associated with a hate-filled conspiracy theorist just looking to USE their platform for free advertising is not an issue of Freedom of Speech.
Every business has the right to refuse service, it does not even need to be in their terms of service.
Whether they are a platform or a media outlet does not matter, they are a private company.
Hey Gank. Actually, when you're a platform, you're saying you take no responsibility for the content on your site. When you start to edit that information, you become a publisher. These 2 roles have very different legal meanings. With regard to private companies refusing service, you can't refuse service to anyone based on political, racial or economic discrimination...even as a private business. You can outline rules that must be followed, but those rules also can NOT be discriminatory in nature.
The problem with these sites, they're editing political content they don't like. CLEARLY this proves they aren't platforms in the legal since. This makes them a media outlet, responsible for the content on their site...yet they claim they aren't media outlets.
Now I agree with what many have said, the wording of current laws has not yet caught up to technology...and it needs to. But the fact still remains, these sites are claiming "platform" status, while editing the content on their sites by purging political opinions they disagree with. They're trying to hide behind user rules being broken. When asked what rules were broken, 99% of the time they say, "oh, our mistake, it's the algorithm's fault". Funny how that algorithm always only deletes one side of a political argument.
Look, if they had a defined standard that was not discriminatory in nature, that would be one thing. But they don't. Instead they keep the standard vague so they can always blame the mysterious algorithm. If the standard was to ban any hate filled person, then countless people like Al Sharpton would be banned. But they don't ban them because there is no objective standard they're using. Instead they cherry pick certain people, point out something they did off the site, and then say it breaks the current rules on the site. That's an impossible standard. It allows discrimination of nearly anyone they want, while giving a pass to others. You could say that's within the rights of a private business, but again, that's NOT true when discriminating against political view points...which is clearly what's happening.
If they would just admit they're acting as a media outlet, then they're free to allow certain political views, while suppressing others...but that's NOT what they're claiming. They want all the benefits of a media outlet, with none of the responsibility of a media outlet label.
By the way...I'm afraid you're mistaken on Twitter? Their CEO, Jack Dorsey, is as far left as they come. He's admitted the company wrongly targeted conservatives.
I do not consider facebook a media outlet, and neither have the courts.
Exactly...they're considered a platform.
'Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote on behalf of the majority that, while the First Amendment's free speech clause applies to "state actors" or governmental entities, the network is a private entity, not a state actor: "Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed," the decision reads. "Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor."'
https://psmag.com/news/a-supreme-courts-decision-could-have-implications-for-social-media-free-speech
Of course a private business is not a state actor. I feel we're speaking different languages. It's illegal for a business to discriminate against people for their political views, unless those views are making direct physical threats of harm to others. When a social media platform starts to discriminate against users who they disagree with, that is illegal. They have a right to prevent ALL political content on their site, but have no right to offer service to some, while discriminating against others based on race, religion, political view, gender, sexual preference, etc.
When social media users violate their listed rules, that is not politics.
Because more people on the right, many who cloak hate in their 'politics', have been banned does not make it a political action by fb.
It is nice to try to frame it that way, if it suits you, but the reality is when someone builds ANYTHING and owns it, they have a right to ask me to follow the rules or leave.
That’s not true. Your argument is the same as yelling fire in a theater, and no one ever yells fire in a theater. These rare if not none existent incidences are used to curb first amendment rights of everyone. That’s why we have no free speech zones.
Another one I love to hear is “it’s on private property so it’s ok.” you can’t break federal law just because it’s on private property. You can’t deal drugs or human traffic or kill someone just because it’s on private property, but somehow you can curb free speech. But keep thinking what you think. You will totalitarianism in no time.
I am saying, you do not have the right to come onto my property and say what you want. I can have you removed by the police. If I own a business, what makes that situation different?
Resteemed by @resteembot! Good Luck!
The resteem was paid by @whatsontrend
Check @resteembot's introduction post or the other great posts I already resteemed.