Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if Congress passed a law that said business in the USA cannot restrict, deny, or retract, any persons freedom to speak?
Nothing denies them they can't.
The First Amendment denies them they can't. The business has rights, too, including freedom of speech. When you force them to provide platforms to speech they expressly don't want on their platforms, you are violating their freedom to define themselves. That's what freedom of speech is, our ability to define ourselves in the world.
I would like to see several things. One would be to regulate a lot of these social media giants as public utilities the other would be to apply anti-trust laws to many of these corporate news networks much smaller. This goes for Google (separate YouTube from Google) but also Time Warner etc.
Well, the reality is that this president and this congress will take neither of these actions.
A D president and congress might be willing to take them.
The problem with your argument is that the companies in question also have their freedom of speech protected. Since Mr Jones still enjoys the freedom to say anything he wishes, just not on their platforms, his freedom of speech has not been violated. Your desire to compel them to host Mr Jones would, however, violate their freedom of speech.
No... Just Federal anti-Trust laws and regulations, in the effort to have NYT v. Sullivan overturned.
The First Amendment denies them they can't. The business has rights, too, including freedom of speech. When you force them to provide platforms to speech they expressly don't want on their platforms, you are violating their freedom to define themselves. That's what freedom of speech is, our ability to define ourselves in the world.
No it doesn't. Where does the 1st amendment say Congress cannot expand Freedom of Speech?
No... Just Federal anti-Trust laws and regulations, in the effort to have NYT v. Sullivan overturned.
Anti-trust laws and regulations have zip to do with this. You proffer NYT v Sullivan, but ignore the FACT that this is a completely different scenario. And finally, you cannot respond to the point that these companies have freedom of speech just as much as Mr Jones has. Since Mr Jones hasn't lost his freedom of speech, there is no way to justify you trying to infringe on these companies' freedom of speech.
No it doesn't. Where does the 1st amendment say Congress cannot expand Freedom of Speech?
These companies have freedom of speech. You are recommending that their freedom be taken away, and that they be compelled to throw away their terms of service. The simple fact of the matter is that Congress can take the action you are recommending, but the courts will void it. The rights of Mr Jones do not outweigh the rights of everyone else.
These companies have freedom of speech. You are recommending that their freedom be taken away, and that they be compelled to throw away their terms of service. The simple fact of the matter is that Congress can take the action you are recommending, but the courts will void it. The rights of Mr Jones do not outweigh the rights of everyone else.
How do you feel about the TOS being violated by other members of these SM outlets by leftists who are still members and have not been banned? Is that okay?
How do you feel about the TOS being violated by other members of these SM outlets by leftists who are still members and have not been banned? Is that okay?
It's up to the websites to make those decisions. And evidently it is up to Jones and his fans to whine about it.
I would like to see several things. One would be to regulate a lot of these social media giants as public utilities
Under that reasoning, every every single business that serves the public would have to be regulated as a public utility.
Quote:
the other would be to apply anti-trust laws to many of these corporate news networks much smaller. This goes for Google (separate YouTube from Google) but also Time Warner etc.
How are these "corporate news networks" stifling competition, exactly?
"We do not want to profit from content of this nature in any way."
[quote]Vimeo told Business Insider that it removed the videos because they “violated our Terms of Service prohibitions on discriminatory and hateful content.” The spokesperson added, “[W]e do not want to profit from content of this nature in any way.” Employees inside the company had reportedly voiced concern about the account’s existence last week. Vimeo CEO Anjali Sud plans to address the decision during a town hall meeting Monday morning.
Vimeo’s ban follows decisions by Facebook, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube to ban or at least suspend Jones from using their services to spread his conspiracy theories and hateful rhetoric.[quote]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
