Kicking Trump off Twitter is 'problematic' and infringes on free speech, Germany and France say

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let me know when those two countries tender an offer to buy out the private platforms to they can set their rules.

They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…

 

[Rigby5]

The US govt does not control who accesses the internet.
The first amend does prohibit the govt from restricting speech on the internet (with child porn being excepted)
If you have link supporting the assertion that twitter (or other internet utilities or boards) may not regulate speech based on their own standards, I'd love to see it.

FCC regulations are huge and painful.
I am not going to bother.
But this is the same principle that the Mormons, Moonies won court cases on.
You can not legally discriminate against ideas you do not like, unless it would directly cause you harm, such as someone successfully suing you.

 

[Rigby5]

They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…

And those countries can sue Twitter for preventing access to those ideas Twitter illegally censors.

 

[Who_Me?]

France - what a power that country is. In WWII Germany conquered France faster than the Taliban took back Afghanistan. The last time the French won a war was the French Revolution, because they were fighting the French.

 

[bendog]

They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…

That's an interesting subject. And not one I've looked at beyond knowing for countries to ban access inside their borders.

 

[bendog]

FCC regulations are huge and painful.
I am not going to bother.
But this is the same principle that the Mormons, Moonies won court cases on.
You can not legally discriminate against ideas you do not like, unless it would directly cause you harm, such as someone successfully suing you.

hasta la vista

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Again, I'd love to see a link the FCC regulations provide that twitter cannot have content standards

Again, the point is NOT whether Twitter can ban speech it does not like.
Can Twitter use public air waves to violate laws that violate free speech laws?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That's an interesting subject. And not one I've looked at beyond knowing for countries to ban access inside their borders.

Twitter claims they are like AT&T or Verizon. They don’t publish info just convos between people and such. But when you Ban based on subjectivity then you are a publisher and may be held liable. Verizon won’t ban you for saying vaccines don’t work for example. Twitter may. Right White 6

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Again, I'd love to see a link the FCC regulations provide that twitter cannot have content standards

Apparently "content standards" is a euphemism for violating free speech laws.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Twitter claims they are like AT&T or Verizon. They don’t publish info just convos between people and such. But when you Ban based on subjectivity then you are a publisher and may be held liable. Verizon won’t ban you for saying vaccines don’t work for example. Twitter may. Right @White 6

Exactly! Twitter's subjective preferences violate free speech protections.

Funny how thinly varnished the left's sense of constitutional protections are.

 

[bendog]

Again, the point is NOT whether Twitter can ban speech it does not like.
Can Twitter use public air waves to violate laws that violate free speech laws?

Free speech only applies to regulations by the govt. The govt cannot ban or limit any content

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

although both Trump and the dems question whether that should be so.

Rigby chose not to put up any proof that the FCC prohibits private utilites from enforcing standards for content placed on their sites. I've never heard or read any support for that notion. Although the Trump camp would sorely like that.

 

[bendog]

Twitter claims they are like AT&T or Verizon. They don’t publish info just convos between people and such. But when you Ban based on subjectivity then you are a publisher and may be held liable. Verizon won’t ban you for saying vaccines don’t work for example. Twitter may. Right White 6

Where is there support for the notion that an internet utility or message board becomes "a publisher" when they regulate content?

 

[Rigby5]

France - what a power that country is. In WWII Germany conquered France faster than the Taliban took back Afghanistan. The last time the French won a war was the French Revolution, because they were fighting the French.

The French actually had better tanks at the beginning of the war, and they certainly did not fight badly on an individual basis.
The reason they lost so badly is they thought in defensive immobile terms, and did not realize how important mobility was in concentrating forces.
A smaller German force could move from one French entrenchment to another, each time having a more than 3:1 advantage, and those this a thousand times, to a much larger over all opposing force.

 

[Rigby5]

Free speech only applies to regulations by the govt. The govt cannot ban or limit any content

Homepage - Freedom Forum

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

although both Trump and the dems question whether that should be so.

Rigby chose not to put up any proof that the FCC prohibits private utilites from enforcing standards for content placed on their sites. I've never heard or read any support for that notion. Although the Trump camp would sorely like that.

Again, not true.
The 1st amendment originally only limited the federal government, then states were added, then all government added, but eventually everyone added, as it should have always been.
Never in Common Law has political censorship ever been legal.
Back in Founder times, newspapers had to carry obnoxious adds calling opponents all sort of names.
Political torch parades with public figures hung in effigy were extremely common.

Never before has anyone ever tried to do what Twitter did, and it most obvious is entirely illegal.
Just imagine if Twitter was owned by a Fascist and wanted to ban Civil Rights or Jewish Rights activists.
Never heard of anyone doing something so obviously illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Where is there support for the notion that an internet utility or message board becomes "a publisher" when they regulate content?

Regulate means to ensure full flow.
It does not mean to restrict or censor.
To regulate means to prevent restriction.
And obviously when you disseminate the ideas of one to many, you are a publisher.
This is ancient and settled Common Law.
The only reason this could even happen is because the FCC never quite figured out how to regulate the internet.
But the failure of the FCC to punish violators like Twitter, does not mean it's legal.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, the government owns the Internet.
Twitter signed the FCC rules against discrimination when it accepted use of the Internet.
Twitter use the internet, so then has to abide by FCC rules.

You simply have fundamental misconceptions about the internet and the first amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

hasta la vista

Just look at the synopsis material and it is obvious:
{...
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
...}

The FCC and Speech

The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech.

www.fcc.gov

 

[BlindBoo]

Back in Founder times, newspapers had to carry obnoxious adds calling opponents all sort of names.

Nonsense.

The Court wrote in 1974:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

 

[Rigby5]

You simply have fundamental misconceptions about the internet and the first amendment.

Wrong.
The first amendment is NOT at all the source of the right to free political expression.
It simply is an easy source the SCOTUS often uses as justification, under the penumbra concept, where if a right is so important that the federal government is to be prohibited from violating, then most likely no one should violate it.
The Bill of Rights can NOT create any rights.
Those right have to already exist and be recognized, and the Bill of Rights just implicit restrictions.

It is you who are fundamentally ignorant of the Internet.
It is a public information source that then can not be illegally restricted to censor in violation of inherent individual rights.
There are no restrictions on private use, where you simply are transmitting something to one specific receiver.
But once you disseminate to a wide public audience, then you have to follow rules prohibiting arbitrary censorship.
Only censorship in defense against harm is legal.

 

[dblack]

It is a public information source that then can not be illegally restricted to censor in violation of inherent individual rights.
There are no restrictions on private use, where you simply are transmitting something to one specific receiver.
But once you disseminate to a wide public audience, then you have to follow rules prohibiting arbirary censorship.
Only censorship in defense against harm is legal.

You're simply making shit up. None of this is codified in law, nor should it be. It would be nuts if they tried to.