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

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

What else would you call it? I say vaccines work great. You say they don’t. They ban you and your narrative but keep mind so they are in essence taking a position. If France determines that they can hold em liable or ban it like India banned Tik Tok

 

[Rigby5]

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.”

Wrong.
A newspaper owns is printing and distribution methods so is under no obligation to be at all fair politically.
Newspapers always deliberately push a particular political slant.
But it still would be illegal for a newspaper to deny ads based on the political beliefs of the person wanting to purchase the ads space.

Twitter is not the owner of the media, so then has to follow the FCC rules against political censorship.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
This is codified in FCC regulations, not congressional legislation.
The fact no one is enforcing much of anything on the internet, does not mean its legal.

 

[bendog]

What else would you call it? I say vaccines work great. You say they don’t. They ban you and your narrative but keep mind so they are in essence taking a position. If France determines that they can hold em liable or ban it like India banned Tik Tok

Well, ok, I'll go along with the analogy. But it's not a legal analogy. I think strictly speaking each user is "a publisher" but twitter or facebook just lets the user post, and the publisher is not responsible for any content.

But Simon and Shuster or any "book publisher" does not have to publish anything they don't want to. There's no free speech issue because Simon and Shuster is not owned by a govt. And the US govt printing house just publishes content created by the govt.

Now Rigby asserted (without any proof btw) the the FCC regulates twitter (and whoever else) to not limit content. But he refused to provide any support, so I'm done with him.

Aside: some of us would like to see twitter and facebook and the lot held to the same libel standards of print and broadcast media. IF they publish content that is known to be false knowing its false or simply not caring one way or the other, they could be sued for money. Possibly private message boards, where one has to agree to a code of conduct, or regulation, would be exempt.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
This is codified in FCC regulations, not congressional legislation.
The fact no one is enforcing much of anything on the internet, does not mean its legal.

Links? Quotes? I still think you're just making shit up.

Earlier you were claiming that political discrimination is categorically prohibited, and you were 100% wrong on that, so forgive my doubt.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

Can they use public air waves? Like Radio stations. Can the EIB network ban certain political perspectives it simple doesn't like. Yes they can, because they have a license to broadcast over the public airwaves. It violates no law and doesn't violate free speech either. Neither does Twitter and they don't need an FCC licence to operate on the internet.

 

[Rigby5]

Well, ok, I'll go along with the analogy. But it's not a legal analogy. I think strictly speaking each user is "a publisher" but twitter or facebook just lets the user post, and the publisher is not responsible for any content.

But Simon and Shuster or any "book publisher" does not have to publish anything they don't want to. There's no free speech issue because Simon and Shuster is not owned by a govt. And the US govt printing house just publishes content created by the govt.

Now Rigby asserted (without any proof btw) the the FCC regulates twitter (and whoever else) to not limit content. But he refused to provide any support, so I'm done with him.

You do not need the exact regulations, nor would you be able to understand them and their implications most likely.
The point is how obvious it would be for it to be illegal for a wealthy candidate to simply win elections by buying up all the public media.
Its not a complex concept.

 

[bendog]

Wrong.
A newspaper owns is printing and distribution methods so is under no obligation to be at all fair politically.
Newspapers always deliberately push a particular political slant.
But it still would be illegal for a newspaper to deny ads based on the political beliefs of the person wanting to purchase the ads space.

Twitter is not the owner of the media, so then has to follow the FCC rules against political censorship.

I gotta stop you there because u are posting possibly dangerous misinformation.

Homepage - Freedom Forum

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

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

Yes, newspapers do have a First Amendment right to refuse letters to the editor and ads. Since they are privately owned entities whose editors have editorial control, they are free to promote whatever political, social or economic view they wish.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of editorial control and freedom of the press in 1974 in the case Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241. This case concerned a Florida political candidate who brought suit against The Miami Herald pursuant to the state’s “right-to-reply” statute after the paper refused to print the candidate’s reply to editorials critical of him. The statute in question required a newspaper to provide equal space to a political candidate to reply to any criticism of the candidate’s personal character or official record printed by the newspaper. The Supreme Court found the statute to be unconstitutional in that it violated the First Amendment right to a free press.

The Court wrote:

“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.”

Homepage - Freedom Forum

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

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

 

[Rigby5]

Links? Quotes? I still think you're just making shit up.

Earlier you were claiming that political discrimination is categorically prohibited, and you were 100% wrong on that, so forgive my doubt.

Of course political discrimination is strictly prohibited.
I am NOT wrong.
Obviously if you put up a private bill board, you do not have to allow opposition notices on that billboard, but if you are a book publisher, you can't refuse to publish books simply because you don't like the ideas they contain.

 

[Rigby5]

I gotta stop you there because u are posting possibly dangerous misinformation.

Homepage - Freedom Forum

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

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

Yes, newspapers do have a First Amendment right to refuse letters to the editor and ads. Since they are privately owned entities whose editors have editorial control, they are free to promote whatever political, social or economic view they wish.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of editorial control and freedom of the press in 1974 in the case Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241. This case concerned a Florida political candidate who brought suit against The Miami Herald pursuant to the state’s “right-to-reply” statute after the paper refused to print the candidate’s reply to editorials critical of him. The statute in question required a newspaper to provide equal space to a political candidate to reply to any criticism of the candidate’s personal character or official record printed by the newspaper. The Supreme Court found the statute to be unconstitutional in that it violated the First Amendment right to a free press.

The Court wrote:

“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.”

Homepage - Freedom Forum

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

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

WRONG!
I never mentioned "letters to the editor", which obviously is under biased editorial control.
I only mentioned ads being purchased by someone with a differing political opinion.
Like if a paper owned by a white supremacist refused to run adds for a Black owned grocery store.
You are totally changing the subject and misrepresenting what I wrote.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is you who are fundamentally ignorant of the Internet.
It is a public information source

No it's not. A library is a public information source. Sure there is a lot of information stored on the internet some of it public some of it private.

that then can not be illegally restricted to censor in violation of inherent individual rights.

The US is a lot less restrictive that most countries, but to be sure it can be legally restricted in many parts of the world.

There are no restrictions on private use, where you simply are transmitting something to one specific receiver.

Sure pal, just try transmitting some illegal images and see how restrictive it can be.

But once you disseminate to a wide public audience, then you have to follow rules prohibiting arbitrary censorship.

I assume you have a link to these rules?

Only censorship in defense against harm is legal.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well, ok, I'll go along with the analogy. But it's not a legal analogy. I think strictly speaking each user is "a publisher" but twitter or facebook just lets the user post, and the publisher is not responsible for any content.

But Simon and Shuster or any "book publisher" does not have to publish anything they don't want to. There's no free speech issue because Simon and Shuster is not owned by a govt. And the US govt printing house just publishes content created by the govt.

Now Rigby asserted (without any proof btw) the the FCC regulates twitter (and whoever else) to not limit content. But he refused to provide any support, so I'm done with him.

Aside: some of us would like to see twitter and facebook and the lot held to the same libel standards of print and broadcast media. IF they publish content that is known to be false knowing its false or simply not caring one way or the other, they could be sued for money. Possibly private message boards, where one has to agree to a code of conduct, or regulation, would be exempt.

Right so there is a thin line and in the US they may skate by but other countries aren’t required to follow our laws. So if the EU bans Twitter and India does too, they lose pretty significant revenue streams IMO. It’s stretch but that is the rationale. You cannot control narrative and then claim you’re just an unbiased parking lot for ideas and such.

 

[BlindBoo]

Wrong.
A newspaper owns is printing and distribution methods so is under no obligation to be at all fair politically.
Newspapers always deliberately push a particular political slant.
But it still would be illegal for a newspaper to deny ads based on the political beliefs of the person wanting to purchase the ads space.

Twitter is not the owner of the media, so then has to follow the FCC rules against political censorship.

Our SC ruled otherwise in regards to printed media, including advertising. Not so for the license holders of Broadcast media.

Twitter didn't ban Trump over his politics. They banned him over the violence they believe he inspired after his election loss while on their platform.

 

[White 6]

Our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression is not limited or abridged because Twitter
or Facebook is privately owned and it's odd you would think they would be. Or should be.

As long as Big Tech oligarchs rely on the internet, a public accommodation, to do their business (the way a poodle or a stray dog would do theirs) it seems to me it's only common sense and just that they should
be bound by our laws and founding principles the same way people that drive on public roadways
are bound by laws of the road.

I don't know where people like you get the idea that Twitter is not bound by our laws merely because
Twitter is privately owned. What other product is immune to US laws merely because a business is
owned by an individual or group?

Are Big Tech Oligarchs publishers or merely like electronic bulletin board? The old arguments
have yet to be settled.

They are bound by our laws and one of the benefits of not being a government entity, is their own private interest get to set policy, just like Kroger or Ford or Joe Sh#t the rag man lawn maintenance guy who doesn't have to help A-holes with their lawns if he does like them.

 

[Rigby5]

No it's not. A library is a public information source. Sure there is a lot of information stored on the internet some of it public some of it private.

The US is a lot less restrictive that most countries, but to be sure it can be legally restricted in many parts of the world.


Sure pal, just try transmitting some illegal images and see how restrictive it can be.


I assume you have a link to these rules?

Wrong.
Even though a library is public, that does not mean there are not rooms with materials you are not allowed to see, and they can rent out rooms to private events.
The fact a public media can allow for private uses, does not mean it is a private media that can ignore laws against discrimination.
And private discrimination is also illegal.
A store can not for example, but up a sign sayin "no Jews or Democrats allowed".

There are no images that are illegal.
What is illegal is who you harm by showing them or perhaps making them.

I totally disagree with Trump, but nothing he said on Twitter was an illegal incitement to violence.
So you have no defense for Twitter there.

 

[Rigby5]

Our SC ruled otherwise in regards to printed media, including advertising. Not so for the license holders of Broadcast media.

Twitter didn't ban Trump over his politics. They banned him over the violence they believe he inspired after his election loss while on their platform.

Wrong.
The SCOTUS ruled private newspapers can NOT deny advertisements arbitrarily.

There is no legal basis for believing Trump inspired the Jan 6 violence, nor could they then legal punish by banning all tweets, including those clearly not violent.

 

[Rigby5]

They are bound by our laws and one of the benefits of not being a government entity, is their own private interest get to set policy, just like Kroger or Ford or Joe Sh#t the rag man lawn maintenance guy who doesn't have to help A-holes with their lawns if he does like them.

Wrong.
Kroger and Ford most definitely do NOT get to set their own policies, any more than a cake baker does.
If you are going to be open to the public at all, then you can not discriminate at all, (except illegal things like slander, etc.).

 

[dblack]

Of course political discrimination is strictly prohibited.
I am NOT wrong.

Yeah, you are. You're under this weird delusion that all discrimination has been declared illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Only a few types of discrimination have been targeted. Political affiliation isn't one of them.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
Kroger and Ford most definitely do NOT get to set their own policies, any more than a cake baker does.
If you are going to be open to the public at all, then you can not discriminate at all, (except illegal things like slander, etc.).

Who told you that? Seriously? It's not true. You're just factually and demonstrably wrong. Have you even looked it up?

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah, you are. You're under this weird delusion that all discrimination has been declared illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Only a few types of discrimination have been targeted. Political affiliation isn't one of them.

Wrong.
Never has political discrimination been legal.
It is a basic common law element going back before the revolution.
The particular groups with a history of being discriminated against are specifically listed as protected, in no way implies any other discrimination is legal.
That would obviously be unequal treatment under the law.
It is inherently illegal to only prevent specific discrimination types or groups.
Anyone with any understanding of the principles of law would know that.