Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling First Amendment right to censor'

[CivilDiscourse]

A good argument then to not reinstate it "as it was" but amended to fit Big Tech.



Why am I not surprised by this?

If the Fairness Act was faulty as written, then it can be amended. If it was too faulty to be useful or applicable today, then something along those same lines needs to be considered. Again, the reasoning is that the airwaves belong to everyone and one political philosophy shouldn't be able to monopolize it. The same should apply to the Internet. It would be one thing if Google, Twitter and Facebook stepped aside and allowed room for competition, but they seek to crush it at every opportunity.

Better would be extending Marsh v. Alabama ruling to social media.

Source: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/571/marsh-v-alabama#:~:text=BY%2DSA%204.0)-,In%20Marsh%20v.,not%20be%20arrested%20for%20trespass.

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that a person distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company town” was protected by the First Amendment rights of freedom of the press and religion and could not be arrested for trespass.

The “company town” is largely a thing of the past, but in the early 1920s much of the U.S. coal mining population lived in company-owned homes, as did many southern cotton mill workers. Company towns comprised a small, but not insignificant, percentage of traditional public space. Around this time, the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation built homes for its workers, streets, sewers, and a downtown business district in Chickasaw, Alabama (a suburb of Mobile).

Gulf did not prohibit individuals from neighboring areas from entering Chickasaw, driving on its streets, and shopping in the business district. When Grace Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, began passing out religious literature on the sidewalk in front of the post office, however, she was told she would not be given a permit to distribute the literature and was asked to leave. Marsh refused. She was arrested and charged under state law with trespass on Gulf property. Marsh’s conviction was affirmed by the state appellate court and the Alabama Supreme Court. In the trial court and throughout the appellate process, Marsh argued that her individual constitutional rights of freedom of press and freedom of religion should not be trumped by the private property owner’s right to exclude.

Court found that the company town functioned like a public town


The U.S. Supreme Court examined the manner in which the Gulf-owned property functioned in the community. Writing for a 5-3 majority, Justice Hugo L. Black noted that “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” The Court continued, “Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town[,] the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free.” Accordingly, the Court reversed Marsh’s conviction, concluding that the state could not use a trespass law to punish Marsh for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company town.

Three justices—Stanley F. Reed, Harold H. Burton, and Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson—dissented. Reed wrote, “The rights of the owner, which the Constitution protects as well as the right of free speech, are not outweighed by the interests of the trespasser, even though he trespasses in behalf of religion or free speech.”

Case has remained a guiding principle of constitutional law


Although Marsh was decided at the end of the era of company towns, its central holding has remained a guiding principle of constitutional law. Two decades later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limited private property owners’ ability to refuse entry or service to individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. Additionally, Marsh became the conceptual foundation for PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) and other cases in which individuals claimed First Amendment rights of speech and free exercise in shopping malls, airports, and other quasi-public spaces.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

A good argument then to not reinstate it "as it was" but amended to fit Big Tech.



Why am I not surprised by this?

If the Fairness Act was faulty as written, then it can be amended. If it was too faulty to be useful or applicable today, then something along those same lines needs to be considered. Again, the reasoning is that the airwaves belong to everyone and one political philosophy shouldn't be able to monopolize it. The same should apply to the Internet. It would be one thing if Google, Twitter and Facebook stepped aside and allowed room for competition, but they seek to crush it at every opportunity.

Because intended or not the Fairness Doctrine is a cudgel used by some to silence the opinions of others. Much like the Inflation Reduction Act does the opposite of what it claims to do, so did the Fairness Doctrine.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I think that was right around the time that the liberal show "Air America" was cancelled due to poor ratings. Liberals realized they couldn't compete in that arena and were desperately trying to figure out some way to force themselves onto the air

I remember listening to Air America because my wife liked to listen to it. What I really remember is wanting to send the hosts to anger management classes because what came over the air was their anger. They may have had some good points and points deserving of a rebuttal, but I just couldn't get past the anger. As I recall, one host actually got arrested for something that would be caused by anger.

As I remember, I determined Al Franken was actually the best of the hosts.

[rogue06]

I remember listening to Air America because my wife liked to listen to it. What I really remember is wanting to send the hosts to anger management classes because what came over the air was their anger. They may have had some good points and points deserving of a rebuttal, but I just couldn't get past the anger. As I recall, one host actually got arrested for something that would be caused by anger.

As I remember, I determined Al Franken was actually the best of the hosts.

He was. But they set an awfully low bar. Randi Rhodes, the other "big name" talent came across as incredibly shrill. Like a harpy on crack.

[Ronson]

Better would be extending Marsh v. Alabama ruling to social media.

Source: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/571/marsh-v-alabama#:~:text=BY%2DSA%204.0)-,In%20Marsh%20v.,not%20be%20arrested%20for%20trespass.

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that a person distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company town” was protected by the First Amendment rights of freedom of the press and religion and could not be arrested for trespass.

The “company town” is largely a thing of the past, but in the early 1920s much of the U.S. coal mining population lived in company-owned homes, as did many southern cotton mill workers. Company towns comprised a small, but not insignificant, percentage of traditional public space. Around this time, the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation built homes for its workers, streets, sewers, and a downtown business district in Chickasaw, Alabama (a suburb of Mobile).

Gulf did not prohibit individuals from neighboring areas from entering Chickasaw, driving on its streets, and shopping in the business district. When Grace Marsh, a Jehovah’s Witness, began passing out religious literature on the sidewalk in front of the post office, however, she was told she would not be given a permit to distribute the literature and was asked to leave. Marsh refused. She was arrested and charged under state law with trespass on Gulf property. Marsh’s conviction was affirmed by the state appellate court and the Alabama Supreme Court. In the trial court and throughout the appellate process, Marsh argued that her individual constitutional rights of freedom of press and freedom of religion should not be trumped by the private property owner’s right to exclude.

Court found that the company town functioned like a public town


The U.S. Supreme Court examined the manner in which the Gulf-owned property functioned in the community. Writing for a 5-3 majority, Justice Hugo L. Black noted that “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” The Court continued, “Whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town[,] the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free.” Accordingly, the Court reversed Marsh’s conviction, concluding that the state could not use a trespass law to punish Marsh for distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a company town.

Three justices—Stanley F. Reed, Harold H. Burton, and Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson—dissented. Reed wrote, “The rights of the owner, which the Constitution protects as well as the right of free speech, are not outweighed by the interests of the trespasser, even though he trespasses in behalf of religion or free speech.”

Case has remained a guiding principle of constitutional law


Although Marsh was decided at the end of the era of company towns, its central holding has remained a guiding principle of constitutional law. Two decades later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limited private property owners’ ability to refuse entry or service to individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. Additionally, Marsh became the conceptual foundation for PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) and other cases in which individuals claimed First Amendment rights of speech and free exercise in shopping malls, airports, and other quasi-public spaces.

© Copyright Original Source

More along the lines of forcing a monopoly to act as a public interest, as opposed to breaking it up (Ma Bell). That might work.

[CivilDiscourse]

More along the lines of forcing a monopoly to act as a public interest, as opposed to breaking it up (Ma Bell). That might work.

There's alot of problems dealing with facebook and current anti-trust types of laws.

1. It's hard to define Facebook's "market". We are facebook's product, not it's customers. It's customers are people buying ads to show to us. From that perspective, Facebook as ALOT of competition, there's google search, twitter, instagram, tic toc, snapchat, etc. So, from the perspective of who it's customers are, they are nowhere NEAR a monopoly.

2. It's probably not even fair to say Facebook or twitter have near monopolies on social media. First of all, look above and there are plenty of social media companies out there. Second, being on one social media platform doesn't preclude you from being on others, any more than being a member of this forum precludes you from being on CARM or others.

3. I'm not sure "breaking them up" is going to be effective in any way, shape, or form. Breaking up the telecoms worked because at the end of the day, everyone was still on the same phone network. It didn't matter if you were with AT&T, Southwestern Bell, or any of the other baby bells, you could still pick up your phone, dial their number and talk to them. That doesn't work on Social Media. They don't talk to each other. You can't see facebook posts on twitter, reply to tweets from facebook, etc. all you do is split the users, who will then self-organize, likely once again creating another near monopoly, as people migrate to the social media that has the best features and most active populations (i.e. where they can do the whole social media thing) where we repeat the cycle.

I think that's why its better to treat these things as public squares in company towns.

[Ronson]

There's alot of problems dealing with facebook and current anti-trust types of laws.

1. It's hard to define Facebook's "market". We are facebook's product, not it's customers. It's customers are people buying ads to show to us. From that perspective, Facebook as ALOT of competition, there's google search, twitter, instagram, tic toc, snapchat, etc. So, from the perspective of who it's customers are, they are nowhere NEAR a monopoly.

2. It's probably not even fair to say Facebook or twitter have near monopolies on social media. First of all, look above and there are plenty of social media companies out there. Second, being on one social media platform doesn't preclude you from being on others, any more than being a member of this forum precludes you from being on CARM or others.

3. I'm not sure "breaking them up" is going to be effective in any way, shape, or form. Breaking up the telecoms worked because at the end of the day, everyone was still on the same phone network. It didn't matter if you were with AT&T, Southwestern Bell, or any of the other baby bells, you could still pick up your phone, dial their number and talk to them. That doesn't work on Social Media. They don't talk to each other. You can't see facebook posts on twitter, reply to tweets from facebook, etc. all you do is split the users, who will then self-organize, likely once again creating another near monopoly, as people migrate to the social media that has the best features and most active populations (i.e. where they can do the whole social media thing) where we repeat the cycle.

I think that's why its better to treat these things as public squares in company towns.

Well, then I don't know the answer. Honestly, I don't use Twitter at all. I have a pseudonyms Facebook account that is only used as a quick login to Spotify (it serves no other purpose). And Google, well, I use that but divide it up with DuckDuckGo. I only use YouTube for music, and go to BitChute and Odysee for the occasional political video.

In short, I am not entrenched in these services as most people are so my grasp on them is lacking.

[CivilDiscourse]

Well, then I don't know the answer. Honestly, I don't use Twitter at all. I have a pseudonyms Facebook account that is only used as a quick login to Spotify (it serves no other purpose). And Google, well, I use that but divide it up with DuckDuckGo. I only use YouTube for music, and go to BitChute and Odysee for the occasional political video.

In short, I am not entrenched in these services as most people are so my grasp on them is lacking.

That's fine. The overall point is that the whole area of social media, ad sales, etc. is a very murky thing. The business models make defining their market accurately difficult.

New legislation will be needed at some point to just define these businesses in such a way that the government CAN regulate them if it needs to.

[rogue06]

Well, then I don't know the answer. Honestly, I don't use Twitter at all. I have a pseudonyms Facebook account that is only used as a quick login to Spotify (it serves no other purpose). And Google, well, I use that but divide it up with DuckDuckGo. I only use YouTube for music, and go to BitChute and Odysee for the occasional political video.

In short, I am not entrenched in these services as most people are so my grasp on them is lacking.

I opened an account on Facebook during The CRASH™ and I think I've looked back at it maybe twice since then

My name is/was something like Nunov Urbiz

[Ronson]

I opened an account on Facebook during The CRASH™ and I think I've looked back at it maybe twice since then

My name is/was something like Nunov Urbiz

It was/is useful for some apps to have a quick login. Because they otherwise ask for an email address and a login and a password (blah blah) every time when I can just click the "Use Facebook to login" button. It also works for adding comments to some online magazine and newspaper articles.

I tried opening a real Facebook account about 12 years ago and I hated it. For a week, I had all sorts of extended family sending me messages on it and they'd get all butthurt if I didn't respond immediately, people I didn't really want to communicate with and nonsense topics to boot. So after a week of it all I cancelled it.

[Sparko]

Is "Big Tech" in the same category as broadcast media? If so, then they do not have the right to censor one side of a political spectrum.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine

In 1959 a portion of the fairness doctrine became U.S. law when Congress amended the Communications Act with the doctrine’s mandate of equal airtime for office seekers. The revised law recognized some exceptions to the equal airtime mandate but held that such exceptions did not annul licensees’ obligation to provide equal airtime and balanced coverage of “conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

If they are simply private companies exercising their right to run their companies in a way they choose, then they need to have their Internet presence curtailed because they are near monopolies and are squeezing out the competition. They can't have it both ways.

I agree to a certain extent. As a private company they do have a right to control the speech allowed on their platforms. Just like Theologyweb does (we limit profanity, some flaming and outright racism) BUT I think that when a platform ends up as a defacto public square such as Twitter, or Facebook, then there should be limits on what they can censor. At that point they have become almost a utility. If your internet provider or power company tried to limit its services to only liberals for instance, or censored a person's political speech, they would not get away with it. I think when a platform becomes the only game in town then they shouldn't be able to censor free speech. There are competitors to twitter, facebook, youtube and such but they are so small in comparison that they are effectively invisible.

[Sparko]

Federal Court rules Big Tech has no 'freewheeling First Amendment right to censor'

This could get interesting...

Reading that it really only says that the platforms can't use the excuse that their first amendment rights let's them censor other people's speech. In Texas. It doesn't meant that they can't still censor other people's speech. Just that they can't claim they have a first amendment right to it. I think they still have a private ownership right to run their platform the way they want. They should just be honest about it. Say Twitter is dedicated to liberal viewpoints and other viewpoints are not welcome here, or something like that.

[Ronson]

I agree to a certain extent. As a private company they do have a right to control the speech allowed on their platforms. Just like Theologyweb does (we limit profanity, some flaming and outright racism) BUT I think that when a platform ends up as a defacto public square such as Twitter, or Facebook, then there should be limits on what they can censor. At that point they have become almost a utility. If your internet provider or power company tried to limit its services to only liberals for instance, or censored a person's political speech, they would not get away with it. I think when a platform becomes the only game in town then they shouldn't be able to censor free speech. There are competitors to twitter, facebook, youtube and such but they are so small in comparison that they are effectively invisible.

True, but that has always been the case with private media - and public media. There are certain things that have to be censored (offensive material, incitement, libel) or they'd get into trouble. TWEB doesn't censor political opinion, and there's the divide.

[CivilDiscourse]

Reading that it really only says that the platforms can't use the excuse that their first amendment rights let's them censor other people's speech. In Texas. It doesn't meant that they can't still censor other people's speech. Just that they can't claim they have a first amendment right to it. I think they still have a private ownership right to run their platform the way they want. They should just be honest about it. Say Twitter is dedicated to liberal viewpoints and other viewpoints are not welcome here, or something like that.

Yes, but they are objecting to a texas law that forbids them to censor over political viewpoint.

[Teallaura]

Is "Big Tech" in the same category as broadcast media? If so, then they do not have the right to censor one side of a political spectrum.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine

In 1959 a portion of the fairness doctrine became U.S. law when Congress amended the Communications Act with the doctrine’s mandate of equal airtime for office seekers. The revised law recognized some exceptions to the equal airtime mandate but held that such exceptions did not annul licensees’ obligation to provide equal airtime and balanced coverage of “conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

If they are simply private companies exercising their right to run their companies in a way they choose, then they need to have their Internet presence curtailed because they are near monopolies and are squeezing out the competition. They can't have it both ways.

Fairness Doctrine applied to media, specifically barring them from accepting ads from only one side, or candidate. No, it does not apply here

Edit to remove: - excepting actual candidates. That's untested to my knowledge but I suspect it would apply.

Because I knew full well it had been repealed and got carried away.