Justice Clarence Thomas-Section 230 unconstitutional

[HoughMade]

If a government official speaks as a government official, sure, I see banning comments as violating freedom of speech.

...but that's about as far as it goes. The 1st Amendment only applies to government restriction.

Now, if we want to talk about social media editing and banning and then claiming not to be a publisher for defamation purposes....well there we've got something.

 

[Ingomike]

If a government official speaks as a government official, sure, I see banning comments as violating freedom of speech.

...but that's about as far as it goes. The 1st Amendment only applies to government restriction.

Now, if we want to talk about social media editing and banning and then claiming not to be a publisher for defamation purposes....well there we've got something.

I have pondered to no satisfaction the situation we are in.

In a way unimaginable to the framers, a couple of individuals, each in control of a company that is more powerful than most nations, are restricting the people's speech. The government and politicians largely approves of those speech restrictions and lacks the will to protect the people's rights.

So while the first applies to government itself infringing on speech it is interesting to ponder government complicity in the current infringements of speech and corrections that could be made by the courts. That certainly is no farther a stretch than many other court decisions...

 

[MCgrease08]

If a government official speaks as a government official, sure, I see banning comments as violating freedom of speech.

...but that's about as far as it goes. The 1st Amendment only applies to government restriction.

Now, if we want to talk about social media editing and banning and then claiming not to be a publisher for defamation purposes....well there we've got something.

And herein lies the nuance.

Contrary to the thread title, SCOTUS declined to take the case, letting a lower court ruling stand because the lawsuit is moot at this point. I don't believe that renders the 230 protection big tech likes to hide behind as unconstitutional, but I haven't read the brief.

What Thomas suggested, is that the lower court ruling that says an elected official doesn't have the right to block people from following or commenting, doesn't make a lot of sense as long as Twitter or Facebook has the power to arbitrarily suspend or remove the account completely. He made the common carrier comparison that frames these tech platforms as utilities / public forums that may warrant a certain level of regulation like other public utilities. We will have to see where it all leads.

As to the "but muh private bizness" argument, we already have regulations and standards covering all manner of private business activities that influence or flat out dictate how private businesses must be run. This is no different.

As much as I like the idea of giving complete control to the business owner, I also understand that some regulation is warranted in the interest of the public. After all, we have health codes that establish basic food prep standards. I kind of like knowing that some small Italian restaurant cook isn't mixing up the marinara with his stinky feet because that's the way grandma did it in the old country 150 years ago.

Kind of an extreme example, but the cat's already out of the bag in terms of regulation. No private business has complete autonomy to do whatever it wants.

 

[Tombs]

If a government official speaks as a government official, sure, I see banning comments as violating freedom of speech.

...but that's about as far as it goes. The 1st Amendment only applies to government restriction.

Now, if we want to talk about social media editing and banning and then claiming not to be a publisher for defamation purposes....well there we've got something.

I don't see it as any different than if twitter turned around tomorrow and said "we will no longer allow black people to use our platform."

If the purpose of your platform is speech for the masses, and to be the public square for conversation... I'll admit our laws are exceptionally dated for handling the problem, but it should be obvious that this is a special situation and case with regards to individual rights and private property.

The first amendment is pretty useless if the only place it's applicable has been made so obsolete as to be pointless.

For crying out loud, it's practically the official resource to have a conversation with politicians and world leaders.

 

[HoughMade]

I would think we would be after a market solution. Making social media platforms either stop controlling the content or being held liable for untruths posted there would seem to be a way forward. As it stands, they can both control, like a publisher, and avoid liability.

The cheaper solution would be to stop acting like a publisher, actually be an open forum, as the liability for allowing defamation would be overwhelming.

 

[Ingomike]

I would think we would be after a market solution. Making social media platforms either stop controlling the content or being held liable for untruths posted there would seem to be a way forward. As it stands, they can both control, like a publisher, and avoid liability.

The cheaper solution would be to stop acting like a publisher, actually be an open forum, as the liability for allowing defamation would be overwhelming.

Wasn't that what 230 was supposed to be about? Hard to get a market solution when they gobble up competition like pac man and control patents for the way to communicate.

Just an everyday example, for years business put pins on physical maps to mark locations of homes for sale, customers, etc. A person patented that in the virtual world and every company in the US either pays. If you see a house on a map for sale, they all pay, if you see a hail storm pin on a map, they paid. We got so caught up in maqic tech we lost our common sense, patents for common procedures on a bulletin board should not be patentable because the user moved online.

The point being we have let big tech run over the people and must rein it in including looking at improper patents...

 

[Tombs]

A market solution was tried, the rest of the market decided that virtue signaling was more important than money and pulled the plug on them, while simultaneously doxxing everyone associated with it.

 

[HoughMade]

Wasn't that what 230 was supposed to be about? Hard to get a market solution when they gobble up competition like pac man and control patents for the way to communicate.

Designed? Yes, but they are not keeping up their end of the bargain.

As Justice Thomas said in his opinion: "Federal law dictates that companies cannot 'be treated as the publisher or speaker' of information that they merely distribute. 110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C. §230(c)."

If the company is not merely distributing, but controlling the content, these protections should not apply. If that was a credible threat, which it should be, they would have to decide:

- Do we want the 230 protection? If so, we have to merely distribute.

- Do we want to control the content? If so, we are a publisher and have to deal with everything that comes with that.

 

[cosermann]

Designed? Yes, but they are not keeping up their end of the bargain.

As Justice Thomas said in his opinion: "Federal law dictates that companies cannot 'be treated as the publisher or speaker' of information that they merely distribute. 110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C. §230(c)."

If the company is not merely distributing, but controlling the content, these protections should not apply. If that was a credible threat, which it should be, they would have to decide:

- Do we want the 230 protection? If so, we have to merely distribute.

- Do we want to control the content? If so, we are a publisher and have to deal with everything that comes with that.

Exactly.

 

[Cameramonkey]

If a government official speaks as a government official, sure, I see banning comments as violating freedom of speech.

...but that's about as far as it goes. The 1st Amendment only applies to government restriction.

Now, if we want to talk about social media editing and banning and then claiming not to be a publisher for defamation purposes....well there we've got something.

This. Social media has become the new public square. Its more than entertainment now. They cant have their cake and eat it too.

Internet in its current form should be classified as a utility now. It is getting more and more difficult to communicate and do your business without the internet. For example some companies only interview and hire via internet now. (zoom, application process, etc) Dont have that ability? Guess you are stuck working for McDonalds or other companies that provide kiosks for the application process.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Leadeye]

I guess I just don't understand why the electric company would give a hoot about a person's internet content.

 

[BugI02]

The electric company already cares about your financial credit score, is it such a huge jump to believe they will care about your social credit score if doing so advantages them at the government trough?

Follow the Money®

 

[Ingomike]

I guess I just don't understand why the electric company would give a hoot about a person's internet content.

I hear this type of response all the time, you are in a big group, on a lot of these complex connections issues.

The electric company is there due to being selected by the government.

The government has the ultimate decision as to how much money they can make.

Is it far fetched that assisting and doing what the utility can, that the government wants, and likely cannot do because of pesky constitutional rights, would gain them favor and therefore more money?

Follow the money...