Let's talk first amendment, and social media

[Shadow#1]

Fox is no longer right-wing.

Section 230 is unconstitutional.

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

What happen to parler is the right thing as they don't want that unmoderated filth on their platform

 

[UltraSUPRA]

What happen to parler is the right thing as they don't want that unmoderated filth on their platform

Where are you supposed to post right-wing opinions, then?

 

[Xzi]

Section 230 is unconstitutional.

So take it up with the Supreme Court. Until they rule otherwise, it is indeed constitutional.

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

Yeah, Apple and Google removed it from their storefronts, which is their right. It still exists though, regardless of the fact that it won't be gaining many new users.

 

[Shadow#1]

Where are you supposed to post right-wing opinions, then?

If your right wing opinions have threats and hate it does not belong no place

 

[UltraSUPRA]

If your right wing opinions have threats and hate it does not belong no place

Thoughtcrime, basically.

 

[Xzi]

Thoughtcrime, basically.

No, straight up crime crime. Even the first amendment does not protect threats and incitement of riots.

 

[Frankfort42]

First off, there's no such thing as "hate speech". That's simply a label from people who don't like free speech.

Secondly, if you support private entities censoring speech then guess what! You guessed it! You won a "you don't support free speech" trophy.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

No, straight up crime crime. Even the first amendment does not protect threats and incitement of riots.

The government only has as much power as we let it get away with. The founding of this country was the product of a riot.

 

[Xzi]

The government only has as much power as we let it get away with.

And Republicans want the government to have absolute power and rule with an iron fist so as long as its their side in charge. What's your point? This discussion is focused on private businesses.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

And Republicans want the government to have absolute power and rule with an iron fist so as long as its their side in charge. What's your point? This discussion is focused on private businesses.

Private businesses who are trying to purge society of opinions.

 

[Shadow#1]

Private businesses who are trying to purge society of opinions.

Of hate speech yes

 

[KingVamp]

Fox is no longer right-wing.

lol

Section 230 is unconstitutional.

As said before, the repeal would actually make them stricter with their banning. Unless that is what you want?

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Of hate speech yes

Hate speech or not, it's an opinion.

 

[Xzi]

Hate speech or not, it's an opinion.

"We should've just debated the Nazis in the marketplace of ideas!"

 

[UltraSUPRA]

"We should've just debated the Nazis in the marketplace of ideas!"

Imagine comparing five murders to six million.

 

[Xzi]

Imagine comparing five murders to six million.

I didn't make any comparison, I was just mocking your argument for being ridiculous. When all your "opinions" are the same as those held by America's past enemies, it's time to do a bit of soul-searching. If you end up deciding that you do hate democracy and truly want to live in a white ethnostate ruled over by a fascist strongman, moving to Russia is always an option.

 

[Hanafuda]

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

Well if you read the text of what you attached, the Federal Court that decided Knight v. Trump actually determined that President Donald Trump's account, by virtue of him being the POTUS, is a public forum. And so Trump could not block people from posting on his account. The Court did not answer the flipside of that, i.e. whether Twitter can ban the President (or other government office holders). Your text snippet, wherever it comes from, doesn't answer it either.

This question of when a privately-owned space becomes so public that the 1st amendment does apply is not as simple as the OP believes. As for SCOTUS opinions, the debate started with Marsh v. Alabama, then Cyber Promotions v. AOL, then Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, and Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. Every time the Supreme Court steps into this issue, it seems they come out with a new conclusion or exception, due to the quickly changing landscape of public communication online. Progressives have been arguing for some time, for example, that internet access is a right, a necessity, and should be treated as a public utility. If that is true, then it's not a big jump from there to concluding that a social media hub like Twitter or Facebook does operate as "a public forum" even if it is privately provided.

Just saying, it's not really a legal slam dunk. Could go either way. But what Courts decide and what ought to be are two different things. My personal opinion is Twitter can allow, or disallow, as they see fit. It's their private space, everyone who makes an account knows that going in.

 

[Shadow#1]

Section 230 is unconstitutional.

U don't want 230 removed the right thinks removing it u can spew your hate speech all u want and that's not what's going to happen what will happen is Well there goes all mews papers because of no opinion articles and no social media and no more and other media in existances today

 

[UltraSUPRA]

I didn't make any comparison, I was just mocking your argument for being ridiculous. When all your "opinions" are the same as those held by America's past enemies, it's time to do a bit of soul-searching. If you end up deciding that you do hate democracy and truly want to live in a white ethnostate ruled over by a fascist strongman, moving to Russia is always an option.

"America's enemies were free-market capitalists that wanted diversity of thought."

 

[Frankfort42]

U don't want 230 removed the right thinks removing it u can spew your hate speech all u want and that's not what's going to happen what will happen is Well there goes all mews papers because of no opinion articles and no social media and no more and other media in existances today

You do realize that this “hate speech” you keep referring to is simply anything that Conservatives say that the Liberals don’t like, right?