Let's talk first amendment, and social media

[Deleted User]

Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity. I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week. If anything, trump trying to force his speech onto those platforms would be a violation of the first amendment.
It's like saying every newspaper in the country needs to have what he says...
which would be very authoritarian considering that thought

 

[Shadow#1]

Since this seems like Trump is going to try to spin the narrative (after his ban from twitter) that for some reason, somehow with twitter banning him being a violation of the first amendment. Which is stupid, and arguably is actually backwards with him trying to force these entities to allow his speech or (similar rhetoric) on it's platforms. The first amendment protects the people FROM the government. Aka companies, such as facebook and twitter, banning people or a certain group DOES NOT VIOLATE the first amendment, they are not a government entity. I feel like it's important to state this before everything unfolding this week. If anything, trump trying to force his speech onto those platforms would be a violation of the first amendment.
It's like saying every newspaper in the country needs to have what he says...
which would be very authoritarian considering that thought

Right on u said it best and totally true

 

[smf]

After living through brexit in the UK where as soon as you mention the NHS you automatically win any argument because people are dumb, as soon as you mention the first amendment then you win the argument because again people are dumb.

If Trump said that refusing to be tea bagged by him was a violation of the first amendment, then there are people who would line up.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Is Twitter a platform or a publisher?

 

[Shadow#1]

Is Twitter a platform or a publisher?

Platform

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Platform

Then they don't get to ban people.

 

[Xzi]

This is as much a first amendment issue as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is. In other words: it's not a first amendment issue at all. Just more hypocrisy from conservatives who love it when businesses find a way to deny service to LGBTQ individuals, but hate when they're denied service for blatantly violating clearly-defined rules.

 

[Shadow#1]

Then they don't get to ban people.

It does not matter what they r they r a private Corporation

 

[UltraSUPRA]

It does not matter what they r they r a private Corporation

They are a public forum.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is as much a first amendment issue as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is. In other words: it's not a first amendment issue at all. Just more hypocrisy from conservatives who love it when businesses find a way to deny service to LGBTQ individuals, but hate when they're denied service for blatantly violating clearly-defined rules.

A gay cake was simply not something that the baker sells. That's like going to a book store and demanding they sell you a pair of shoes.

 

[Shadow#1]

They are a public forum.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


A gay cake was simply not something that the baker sells. That's like going to a book store and demanding they sell you a pair of shoes.

A cake is a cake it does not matter what the end result is

 

[Tigran]

They are a public forum.

Sorry.. You are wrong. They are a private company, they could ban anyone for saying "Cake" if they wanted to.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Sorry.. You are wrong. They are a private company, they could ban anyone for saying "Cake" if they wanted to.

Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).

 

[Shadow#1]

Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).

U can't sue because they didn't silence your first amendment

 

[djpannda]

Either you can ban people but you can get sued (publisher), or you're immune to the law but you can't ban anyone (platform).

or ...better yet.. don't incite and plan a failed coup and you won't be banned!

 

[UltraSUPRA]

U can't sue because they didn't silence your first amendment

If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.

 

[Shadow#1]

If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.

U don't know what your talking about u got it reversed

 

[djpannda]

If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.

... no I think someone needs to learn how the law works... ( from a real lawyer)

 

[Xzi]

If they can ban people, they are responsible for anything that's put up. If someone posts CP, Twitter is responsible. If someone gaslights someone else, Twitter is responsible. If they don't want to be subject to the law, they have to remove all rules.

I don't know where the hell you pick up on this nonsense. Section 230 removes liability from social media for what their users post. That's all. It doesn't prevent private companies from refusing service to people at their own discretion. This would only be a first amendment issue if the US government owned Twitter.

 

[Shadow#1]

I don't know where the hell you pick up on this nonsense. Section 230 removes liability from social media for what their users post. That's all. It doesn't prevent private companies from refusing service to people at their own discretion.

Fox news and all right wing media that's where

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Fox news and all right wing media that's where

Fox is no longer right-wing.

I don't know where the hell you pick up on this nonsense. Section 230 removes liability from social media for what their users post. That's all. It doesn't prevent private companies from refusing service to people at their own discretion. This would only be a first amendment issue if the US government owned Twitter.

Section 230 is unconstitutional.

To anybody saying "build your own Twitter", did you see what happened to Parler?