|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 9:35:36 GMT -5
To anyone who believes that there is somehow not only a legal capability, but also somehow can justify, the possibility of the Federal Government overturning individual states’ determinations as to the winner of the election- consider the following: In the event that the Federal Government used alternate electors in a handful of the contested states, and flipped them to Trump- this would result in disenfranchising voters in all other states. Suspecting fraud is not proving fraud- in what backwards reality can anyone argue Mike Pence gets to override the results of individual states? How are conservatives even considering this when it’s the epitome of big government control over states’ rights? If the system is rigged, it’s rigged in favor of Republicans and always has been due to the Electoral College. Republicans can’t win without the electoral college, and Republican candidates can’t win without disenfranchised voters. This is historical fact- the harder it is for people to vote, the easier it is for Republicans to win. Why is your vote in a small state in the middle of the country worth more than mine in CA? A state which alone is the 5th largest economy in the world. The system is imperfect but it’s what we’ve got- Let’s assume for a moment that half of the 7 million more votes Biden got are fraudulent. 3.5 million more Americans voted for him. Let that sink in for a moment while you talk about how the election was stolen. In terms of disenfranchisement - if illegal pre-printed ballots went into the count totals, that dilutes the integrity of one-person, one-vote. If you have one packet of Kool-Aid (or Jello) and it tells you to put in a quart of water, and you put in two, then you have diluted the result. That is coupled with the foreign servers, and remains an unresolved problem. The votes from smaller or less populated states - was an equity thing - and the constitution drafters contemplated the power of more industrial areas with large populations - who relied upon the less densely populated areas, where food was grown. The cities can't eat without the farmers. And it does not get to the marketplace without truckers, whom we learned during this shut down were our lifeline. So they balanced the power among the city mice and the country mice. One was not found to be better than the other.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 12:48:26 GMT -5
Looks like Parler hasn't got long as it's being dropped by Amazon's hosting service at 11.59pm PST today: this is as good a description as any. "...a right-wing echo chamber, almost entirely populated by users fixated on revealing examples of election fraud and posting messages in support of attempts to overturn the election outcome." This is interesting, and worrying, reading: The 65 days that led to chaos at the CapitolThe Amazon server is Jeff Bezos' who owns and controls the speech at The Washington Post. If 1A is shut down, what I see down the road challenged, is a spillover into the arts. Who becomes the arbiter of song lyrics, poetry, art, literature or even manifestos of unpopular thought? Does Jeff Bezos make the decision that your creative work does not get published or pulled down from his music streaming service because he does not like your lyrics? Because he controls that streaming service. A server and internet service is like water service flowing into your home. No one is supposed to tell you that you can only use the water for cooking and you can't shower with it. And if you are vetting opinion, you are a publisher and not a free-speech platform. Of course you can't do blatantly illegal things like upload porn, but points-of-view are different from that. Look up Eminem‘s second major label album. His label forced him to remove references to the columbine shooting, or else they wouldn’t release it. And that was 21 years ago. This is not new.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 13:10:37 GMT -5
I just tried to fix myself a “scotch and internet” but it turns out I can’t drink the internet :/
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 14:07:19 GMT -5
The Amazon server is Jeff Bezos' who owns and controls the speech at The Washington Post. If 1A is shut down, what I see down the road challenged, is a spillover into the arts. Who becomes the arbiter of song lyrics, poetry, art, literature or even manifestos of unpopular thought? Does Jeff Bezos make the decision that your creative work does not get published or pulled down from his music streaming service because he does not like your lyrics? Because he controls that streaming service. A server and internet service is like water service flowing into your home. No one is supposed to tell you that you can only use the water for cooking and you can't shower with it. And if you are vetting opinion, you are a publisher and not a free-speech platform. Of course you can't do blatantly illegal things like upload porn, but points-of-view are different from that. Look up Eminem‘s second major label album. His label forced him to remove references to the columbine shooting, or else they wouldn’t release it. And that was 21 years ago. This is not new. That is just trying to manage/censor the narrative and you are correct (although I was not aware of it -so, thank you). It was not right then - it is not right now. I taught several decades in an urban school system, during that time, where school violence was not uncommon. Voltaire - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - a lot of the cornerstone foundations of the Declaration of Independence come from the Enlightenment and those philosophers.
|
|
|
Post by donnylang on Jan 10, 2021 14:41:10 GMT -5
So the right wing wants to at once hold companies like Facebook legally accountable for content, but also not allow them to censor content?
PS- I don’t support or use Facebook, Twitter, etc., and clearly they have their own agendas. I am not in favor of censorship, but at some point a line is crossed. They are protecting their A$$ETS because they don’t want to be accountable if and when Trump goes even further than he already has.
Does Adolf Hitler get free speech? Should Charles Manson have been granted a Twitter account?
All this is silly with regard to Trump though, since he has endless options for communication with the public- so no, he has not been “censored”. Find a different outlet, like you know ... a TV broadcast, the White House website, etc ...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 14:41:49 GMT -5
I think a bigger problem is the power we give these companies. Twitter and Facebook are private entities that have the right to ban anyone they feel like banning. Not much different than a “No Shirt No Shoes, No Service” sign outside a restaurant. But there are countless other restaurants I can choose to go to instead. There should be as many different Twitters and Facebooks as there are restaurants to cater to everyone’s different tastes and interests. Of course there are countless message boards and sites catering to everything under the sun, but we give an increasingly narrow margin of such an outlandish amount of our attention and the power they gain from this is quite frightening. And the power we give these outfits goes right up to the top, as we see with Trump.
|
|
|
Post by donnylang on Jan 10, 2021 14:54:53 GMT -5
To anyone who believes that there is somehow not only a legal capability, but also somehow can justify, the possibility of the Federal Government overturning individual states’ determinations as to the winner of the election- consider the following: In the event that the Federal Government used alternate electors in a handful of the contested states, and flipped them to Trump- this would result in disenfranchising voters in all other states. Suspecting fraud is not proving fraud- in what backwards reality can anyone argue Mike Pence gets to override the results of individual states? How are conservatives even considering this when it’s the epitome of big government control over states’ rights? If the system is rigged, it’s rigged in favor of Republicans and always has been due to the Electoral College. Republicans can’t win without the electoral college, and Republican candidates can’t win without disenfranchised voters. This is historical fact- the harder it is for people to vote, the easier it is for Republicans to win. Why is your vote in a small state in the middle of the country worth more than mine in CA? A state which alone is the 5th largest economy in the world. The system is imperfect but it’s what we’ve got- Let’s assume for a moment that half of the 7 million more votes Biden got are fraudulent. 3.5 million more Americans voted for him. Let that sink in for a moment while you talk about how the election was stolen. In terms of disenfranchisement - if illegal pre-printed ballots went into the count totals, that dilutes the integrity of one-person, one-vote. If you have one packet of Kool-Aid (or Jello) and it tells you to put in a quart of water, and you put in two, then you have diluted the result. That is coupled with the foreign servers, and remains an unresolved problem. The votes from smaller or less populated states - was an equity thing - and the constitution drafters contemplated the power of more industrial areas with large populations - who relied upon the less densely populated areas, where food was grown. The cities can't eat without the farmers. And it does not get to the marketplace without truckers, whom we learned during this shut down were our lifeline. So they balanced the power among the city mice and the country mice. One was not found to be better than the other. How about if illegal pre-printed ballots went into count totals in a particular state, maybe there ought to be recounts, even lawsuits ... say, maybe a judge should take a look at that? Maybe someone ought to get together some compelling evidence? As I said in my previous post, I gave you HALF of the votes as fraud. Ha. I’m certain that voter fraud exists. I’m certain that it was relevant to the 2016 Democratic primaries. It’s baked into the system. Get over it. It’s probably benefited Trump and lots of Republican candidates over the years. Just because it exists, you can’t nullify an entire election. You can’t flip votes for your preferred candidate because there’s anecdotal evidence or hearsay about fraud having possibly occurred. I understand the arguments for the Electoral College. Take a look at recent history ... who benefits from the system? Who blocks efforts to change it? Who blocks efforts for things like rank choice voting? Who makes it harder for poor people, disenfranchised communities etc to vote? You do understand the very concept of having to vote in person vs mail in disenfranchise poor people (especially people of color), right? As in, many cannot take a day off of work to vote. And mail in solves that. And guess what? Who might block efforts to make voting day a national holiday? Please listen to yourselves. All of the cases brought to court amount to nothing more than typical ring wing tactics to throw out votes that real people cast in good faith- on technicalities. The court cases did not suggest fraud. This whole thing is a farce to keep a dictator in power with a bunch of ring wing weasels trying to appease him and win over his base. Oh and steal lots and lots of your money at the same time with these fundraisers.
|
|
|
Post by donnylang on Jan 10, 2021 15:06:22 GMT -5
I think a bigger problem is the power we give these companies. Twitter and Facebook are private entities that have the right to ban anyone they feel like banning. Not much different than a “No Shirt No Shoes, No Service” sign outside a restaurant. But there are countless other restaurants I can choose to go to instead. There should be as many different Twitters and Facebooks as there are restaurants to cater to everyone’s different tastes and interests. Of course there are countless message boards and sites catering to everything under the sun, but we give an increasingly narrow margin of such an outlandish amount of our attention and the power they gain from this is quite frightening. And the power we give these outfits goes right up to the top, as we see with Trump. Exactly. Until they are regulated as public utilities or a virtual “public space” of some kind, etc. When a service like this is free, you are the product. For anyone who uses Facebook, Twitter, etc- while you are complaining about the service, you are complicit in your use and support of the service. One man’s opinion. You can’t complain about how Trump was banned from Twitter without also indicating how much you value Twitter. The solution is to leave Twitter en masse and go elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jan 10, 2021 15:09:33 GMT -5
Botonm line: whatever anyone may think, one way or another, the election is done. Biden has been certified the winner by due process of law. Almost all of Trump's suits were dismissed as having no merit, except two Georgia recounts (which changed nothing) and one in Wisconsin, I think (which turned up several hundred more votes - for Biden). Squealing like a stuck pig about missing votes, loading ballots, rigged machines and alien zombies keeping people inside their houses has come to nothing. Come noon EST on January 20th, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president of the United States of America (potential disruption by idiots permitting, and yes, I do think there are people stupid enough to try). Fact.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 17:50:07 GMT -5
What people don’t realize about these social media companies is, they have absolutely no responsibility to hold up the first amendment, because it doesn’t apply to them. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That very first word is important. It’s Congress. Not Twitter, not Facebook, not Google, not Apple, not Amazon. If Twitter had connections to Congress, or were owned by Congress, then limiting someone’s speech on that platform could very well be a First Amendment issue. But the fact is, they’re not. Twitter, much like this very message board, has terms and conditions. If they Believe that you are going against those terms and conditions, they have the right to revoke your access. When you set up your account, you are, in the most basic form, signing a contract with Twitter that you will follow their rules, and in return they will continue to give you access to their platform. Not following the guidelines is basically the same as voiding a contract, and if you don’t live up to your half, then they won’t live up to their half. It’s really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:19:59 GMT -5
What people don’t realize about these social media companies is, they have absolutely no responsibility to hold up the first amendment, because it doesn’t apply to them. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That very first word is important. It’s Congress. Not Twitter, not Facebook, not Google, not Apple, not Amazon. If Twitter had connections to Congress, or were owned by Congress, then limiting someone’s speech on that platform could very well be a First Amendment issue. But the fact is, they’re not. Twitter, much like this very message board, has terms and conditions. If they Believe that you are going against those terms and conditions, they have the right to revoke your access. When you set up your account, you are, in the most basic form, signing a contract with Twitter that you will follow their rules, and in return they will continue to give you access to their platform. Not following the guidelines is basically the same as voiding a contract, and if you don’t live up to your half, then they won’t live up to their half. It’s really that simple. It is really not that simple. Their signal or water pipe is carried across state lines where the companies purposely send their message across and among those states, and it is a very sticky area. Those companies like google, aol and yahoo, were cut a lot of slack at the inception of the internet in order to spread the education end out across the country and teach people how to use it. It had a useful purpose, that created a monster. At one point, in many states teachers were given free internet accounts in order to "spread the gospel" about the world-wide web. I had a free internet account from my state for about 3 years until they were assured that teachers could learn it and then teach their students how to log on, send email and use a search engine to use the internet for educational purposes. That was the inducement (incentive) to get me to learn how to use it. And if you are crossing state lines - just as in interstate commerce, except you can't see trucks on the highways connecting the US, those imaginary lines carry the signal which was a phone line in a wall at the time. You could look up at a telephone pole that stretched across the country and that was not "wireless" as we have now. That gets you into federal jurisdiction and that is US constitution area. But the companies have expanded bases, grown advertiser income but do not think that they are subject to 1A. I would argue that they are, because it is a type of interstate commerce scenario. They represent themselves as a free marketplace "platform" as opposed to a "publisher." They got "too big for their britches." When you come in and try to exercise power and control over the viewpoint - that triggers to 1A scrutiny. When they accept or reject viewpoints - viewpoint-based classification, I would argue, and many agree, is or should be subject to 1A. For example - mail fraud - you might send something to someone in another state, where it is not legal, and the fact that you sent it by mail across a state line, triggers a type of federal jurisdiction. When you put the envelope in the post office box and it goes through the process of getting to another state - you are crossing state lines, just the way the internet does. We don't see how that letter goes through the states - but if you committed a crime - that is how they get you. So - when Jack censors someone he is essentially acting like a judge in court - which is a government function and not the job of a "private actor" - so he becomes a "state actor" when he is a "private actor." And free speech is a fundamental right - so a private actor should not be in the shoes of the government. The problem is Section 230 which gave them immunity - the courts are the ones who are supposed to judge what is or is not "dangerous speech." There is an interesting line of 1A cases, which are not that difficult to slog through. Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to "imminent lawless action." And Twitter left up "Hang Mike Pence" - so what does that mean? and is there an equal protection argument? where the standard is "similarly situated individuals being treated dis-similarly." That just means - is where speech that is construed by some as violent, the standard has to be applied equally. That is Constitutional Law - a hot mess.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 19:31:25 GMT -5
Isn’t this kind of like telling a restaurant manager that they have to let me dine in their establishment if I insist on only wearing a pair of flip flops and a pair of swim trunks? My logic being they’re using tax payer funded roads and stoplights in order to get to their restaurant in the first place or because tax payers fund the food stamp programs their employees reply on because the pay is so low, and on and on and on? Where is there a line drawn? Not everything works exactly how we want it and to our personal benefit. ANY business or entertainment/communication apparatus has to have some sort of a management system: if only to try and keep as many customers/users as they can. I’ve been banned from Facebook before for posting stupid things over and over that violated their guidelines. I’m not crying about it. It wasn’t some huge violation of my freedom or freedom of speech. NOT using Facebook or Twitter is also an example of freedom. I’m free to create my own such site. More people should actually take the initiative to do so. Picking our battles is a key to happiness in a large part. Everything will not be fixed/changed to our benefit overnight. Sometimes we take things on the chin and find ways to get around rules we don’t like and great ingenuity can come from this.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:35:36 GMT -5
Botonm line: whatever anyone may think, one way or another, the election is done. Biden has been certified the winner by due process of law. Almost all of Trump's suits were dismissed as having no merit, except two Georgia recounts (which changed nothing) and one in Wisconsin, I think (which turned up several hundred more votes - for Biden). Squealing like a stuck pig about missing votes, loading ballots, rigged machines and alien zombies keeping people inside their houses has come to nothing. Come noon EST on January 20th, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president of the United States of America (potential disruption by idiots permitting, and yes, I do think there are people stupid enough to try). Fact. The cases never got to the "merits" - as the court asserted "standing" to boot them out. Standing only means you have a right to bring the claim. If multiple states have suffered an injury - meaning dilution of their single whole votes from illegally cast ones or pre-printed ballots, shipped in, I don't know who has the right. So in a math problem you take a whole integer - a number one whole vote against a vote that was pre-printed or run multiple times through a machine which has been captured from security cameras. Each fraudulent single vote is reduced/diminished/eliminated by that false ballot. It cancels that other legit vote out. It is like a husband and wife voting for different candidate - on cancels out the other. Except the wife had no right to vote, for example because she was a citizen of another country. "Standing" is a "procedural" issue - not a "substantive" one. The substantive issues were never reached. No one has heard evidence. And it is considered bizarre, given how recent Bush v. Gore is. That only involved one state (Florida) and several counties in that state. And they took that case because the Supremes have "original" jurisdiction to decide issues when one state sues another state/s. Everyone is waiting for the resignation of Senator Harris, notwithstanding what happened on January 6th.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 19:38:26 GMT -5
Who gives a shit when Harris resigns? Are you the Hall Monitor for the entire country?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:42:48 GMT -5
Isn’t this kind of like telling a restaurant manager that they have to let me dine in their establishment if I insist on only wearing a pair of flip flops and a pair of swim trunks? My logic being they’re using tax payer funded roads and stoplights in order to get to their restaurant in the first place or because tax payers fund the food stamp programs their employees reply on because the pay is so low, and on and on and on? Where is there a line drawn? Not everything works exactly how we want it and to our personal benefit. ANY business or entertainment/communication apparatus has to have some sort of a management system: if only to try and keep as many customers/users as they can. I’ve been banned from Facebook before for posting stupid things over and over that violated their guidelines. I’m not crying about it. It wasn’t some huge violation of my freedom or freedom of speech. NOT using Facebook or Twitter is also an example of freedom. I’m free to create my own such site. More people should actually take the initiative to do so. Picking our battles is a key to happiness in a large part. Everything will not be fixed/changed to our benefit overnight. Sometimes we take things on the chin and find ways to get around rules we don’t like and great ingenuity can come from this. I'm not on Facebook so I don't know their guidelines. When I saw those tags for people - it got my radar working. But was it stupid stuff you said or illegal and menacing stuff? They are a business but they are using those interstate invisible signals that transport messages. The flip flops and swim suit in a restaurant is more a regulatory thing - you are not wearing some slogan that might fall under 1A - for business and not a speech thing. Although you could argue that a t-shirt with a message or slogan is protected - and some schools have gotten into really big trouble over 1A issues. It is generally protected speech.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 19:42:54 GMT -5
Again, Harris can resign anytime between now and the 20th. She doesn’t have to do it right away. Joe Biden was elected vice president all the way back on November 4, 2008. He didn’t resign from his senator position until January 15, 2009, only five days before being sworn in as VP. It’s not unprecedented to wait until the last minute to do these kind of things.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 19:44:31 GMT -5
It sounds like you just don’t like capitalism. And I’m right with you there.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:46:17 GMT -5
Who gives a shit when Harris resigns? Are you the Hall Monitor for the entire country? That is the signal - that there is confidence in the election outcome. They want that seat filled immediately for the continuation of governance. Someone has been named by Newsom for the seat. It is just procedure.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 19:47:37 GMT -5
What people don’t realize about these social media companies is, they have absolutely no responsibility to hold up the first amendment, because it doesn’t apply to them. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That very first word is important. It’s Congress. Not Twitter, not Facebook, not Google, not Apple, not Amazon. If Twitter had connections to Congress, or were owned by Congress, then limiting someone’s speech on that platform could very well be a First Amendment issue. But the fact is, they’re not. Twitter, much like this very message board, has terms and conditions. If they Believe that you are going against those terms and conditions, they have the right to revoke your access. When you set up your account, you are, in the most basic form, signing a contract with Twitter that you will follow their rules, and in return they will continue to give you access to their platform. Not following the guidelines is basically the same as voiding a contract, and if you don’t live up to your half, then they won’t live up to their half. It’s really that simple. It is really not that simple. Their signal or water pipe is carried across state lines where the companies purposely send their message across and among those states, and it is a very sticky area. Those companies like google, aol and yahoo, were cut a lot of slack at the inception of the internet in order to spread the education end out across the country and teach people how to use it. It had a useful purpose, that created a monster. At one point, in many states teachers were given free internet accounts in order to "spread the gospel" about the world-wide web. I had a free internet account from my state for about 3 years until they were assured that teachers could learn it and then teach their students how to log on, send email and use a search engine to use the internet for educational purposes. That was the inducement (incentive) to get me to learn how to use it. And if you are crossing state lines - just as in interstate commerce, except you can't see trucks on the highways connecting the US, those imaginary lines carry the signal which was a phone line in a wall at the time. You could look up at a telephone pole that stretched across the country and that was not "wireless" as we have now. That gets you into federal jurisdiction and that is US constitution area. But the companies have expanded bases, grown advertiser income but do not think that they are subject to 1A. I would argue that they are, because it is a type of interstate commerce scenario. They represent themselves as a free marketplace "platform" as opposed to a "publisher." They got "too big for their britches." When you come in and try to exercise power and control over the viewpoint - that triggers to 1A scrutiny. When they accept or reject viewpoints - viewpoint-based classification, I would argue, and many agree, is or should be subject to 1A. For example - mail fraud - you might send something to someone in another state, where it is not legal, and the fact that you sent it by mail across a state line, triggers a type of federal jurisdiction. When you put the envelope in the post office box and it goes through the process of getting to another state - you are crossing state lines, just the way the internet does. We don't see how that letter goes through the states - but if you committed a crime - that is how they get you. So - when Jack censors someone he is essentially acting like a judge in court - which is a government function and not the job of a "private actor" - so he becomes a "state actor" when he is a "private actor." And free speech is a fundamental right - so a private actor should not be in the shoes of the government. The problem is Section 230 which gave them immunity - the courts are the ones who are supposed to judge what is or is not "dangerous speech." There is an interesting line of 1A cases, which are not that difficult to slog through. Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to "imminent lawless action." And Twitter left up "Hang Mike Pence" - so what does that mean? and is there an equal protection argument? where the standard is "similarly situated individuals being treated dis-similarly." That just means - is where speech that is construed by some as violent, the standard has to be applied equally. That is Constitutional Law - a hot mess. It sounds like what you want is for these big tech companies to be owned by the state instead of being private entities. I don’t know about you, but I call that communism.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:48:44 GMT -5
Again, Harris can resign anytime between now and the 20th. She doesn’t have to do it right away. Joe Biden was elected vice president all the way back on November 4, 2008. He didn’t resign from his senator position until January 15, 2009, only five days before being sworn in as VP. It’s not unprecedented to wait until the last minute to do these kind of things. The election was not in contention in 2008 - it may have been a matter of selection of a replacement. Those are plum appointments by a governor. Big donors get those jobs until an election can be held for a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:51:15 GMT -5
It is really not that simple. Their signal or water pipe is carried across state lines where the companies purposely send their message across and among those states, and it is a very sticky area. Those companies like google, aol and yahoo, were cut a lot of slack at the inception of the internet in order to spread the education end out across the country and teach people how to use it. It had a useful purpose, that created a monster. At one point, in many states teachers were given free internet accounts in order to "spread the gospel" about the world-wide web. I had a free internet account from my state for about 3 years until they were assured that teachers could learn it and then teach their students how to log on, send email and use a search engine to use the internet for educational purposes. That was the inducement (incentive) to get me to learn how to use it. And if you are crossing state lines - just as in interstate commerce, except you can't see trucks on the highways connecting the US, those imaginary lines carry the signal which was a phone line in a wall at the time. You could look up at a telephone pole that stretched across the country and that was not "wireless" as we have now. That gets you into federal jurisdiction and that is US constitution area. But the companies have expanded bases, grown advertiser income but do not think that they are subject to 1A. I would argue that they are, because it is a type of interstate commerce scenario. They represent themselves as a free marketplace "platform" as opposed to a "publisher." They got "too big for their britches." When you come in and try to exercise power and control over the viewpoint - that triggers to 1A scrutiny. When they accept or reject viewpoints - viewpoint-based classification, I would argue, and many agree, is or should be subject to 1A. For example - mail fraud - you might send something to someone in another state, where it is not legal, and the fact that you sent it by mail across a state line, triggers a type of federal jurisdiction. When you put the envelope in the post office box and it goes through the process of getting to another state - you are crossing state lines, just the way the internet does. We don't see how that letter goes through the states - but if you committed a crime - that is how they get you. So - when Jack censors someone he is essentially acting like a judge in court - which is a government function and not the job of a "private actor" - so he becomes a "state actor" when he is a "private actor." And free speech is a fundamental right - so a private actor should not be in the shoes of the government. The problem is Section 230 which gave them immunity - the courts are the ones who are supposed to judge what is or is not "dangerous speech." There is an interesting line of 1A cases, which are not that difficult to slog through. Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to "imminent lawless action." And Twitter left up "Hang Mike Pence" - so what does that mean? and is there an equal protection argument? where the standard is "similarly situated individuals being treated dis-similarly." That just means - is where speech that is construed by some as violent, the standard has to be applied equally. That is Constitutional Law - a hot mess. It sounds like what you want is for these big tech companies to be owned by the state instead of being private entities. I don’t know about you, but I call that communism. It has nothing to do with what I want - it is the legal standard I am looking at. It is not about ownership it is about how they behave to exclude people from a free-speech platform. It is whether the company is acting like the government, which is impermissible. Is the private company acting like a state or government actor.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 19:53:06 GMT -5
It sounds like you just don’t like capitalism. And I’m right with you there. No - I am for capitalism and free marketplace. It is the censorship that flows from a private company using the internet which is sort of a federal thing - interstate communication.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 19:56:35 GMT -5
It is really not that simple. Their signal or water pipe is carried across state lines where the companies purposely send their message across and among those states, and it is a very sticky area. Those companies like google, aol and yahoo, were cut a lot of slack at the inception of the internet in order to spread the education end out across the country and teach people how to use it. It had a useful purpose, that created a monster. At one point, in many states teachers were given free internet accounts in order to "spread the gospel" about the world-wide web. I had a free internet account from my state for about 3 years until they were assured that teachers could learn it and then teach their students how to log on, send email and use a search engine to use the internet for educational purposes. That was the inducement (incentive) to get me to learn how to use it. And if you are crossing state lines - just as in interstate commerce, except you can't see trucks on the highways connecting the US, those imaginary lines carry the signal which was a phone line in a wall at the time. You could look up at a telephone pole that stretched across the country and that was not "wireless" as we have now. That gets you into federal jurisdiction and that is US constitution area. But the companies have expanded bases, grown advertiser income but do not think that they are subject to 1A. I would argue that they are, because it is a type of interstate commerce scenario. They represent themselves as a free marketplace "platform" as opposed to a "publisher." They got "too big for their britches." When you come in and try to exercise power and control over the viewpoint - that triggers to 1A scrutiny. When they accept or reject viewpoints - viewpoint-based classification, I would argue, and many agree, is or should be subject to 1A. For example - mail fraud - you might send something to someone in another state, where it is not legal, and the fact that you sent it by mail across a state line, triggers a type of federal jurisdiction. When you put the envelope in the post office box and it goes through the process of getting to another state - you are crossing state lines, just the way the internet does. We don't see how that letter goes through the states - but if you committed a crime - that is how they get you. So - when Jack censors someone he is essentially acting like a judge in court - which is a government function and not the job of a "private actor" - so he becomes a "state actor" when he is a "private actor." And free speech is a fundamental right - so a private actor should not be in the shoes of the government. The problem is Section 230 which gave them immunity - the courts are the ones who are supposed to judge what is or is not "dangerous speech." There is an interesting line of 1A cases, which are not that difficult to slog through. Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to "imminent lawless action." And Twitter left up "Hang Mike Pence" - so what does that mean? and is there an equal protection argument? where the standard is "similarly situated individuals being treated dis-similarly." That just means - is where speech that is construed by some as violent, the standard has to be applied equally. That is Constitutional Law - a hot mess. It sounds like what you want is for these big tech companies to be owned by the state instead of being private entities. I don’t know about you, but I call that communism. “Selective Communism” New term
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 19:58:51 GMT -5
It sounds like you just don’t like capitalism. And I’m right with you there. No - I am for capitalism and free marketplace. It is the censorship that flows from a private company using the internet which is sort of a federal thing - interstate communication. Using the internet or not, any business entity has to have a purpose and should be allowed to regulate that purpose as they see fit. If the internet is truly open and free, then this is a part of that business’s freedom and you are free to go elsewhere or start your own internet business.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 19:59:14 GMT -5
It sounds like what you want is for these big tech companies to be owned by the state instead of being private entities. I don’t know about you, but I call that communism. It has nothing to do with what I want - it is the legal standard I am looking at. It is not about ownership it is about how they behave to exclude people from a free-speech platform. It is whether the company is acting like the government, which is impermissible. Is the private company acting like a state or government actor. No.Trump has lost 0 freedoms. He can go to a third-party website, he can create his own website, there is thousands of different things he can do to get his message out there. But he can’t post it on Twitter or Facebook. Also, Twitter never promised anyone free speech on their platform.
|
|