-->
@n8nrgmi
how does the first amendment apply to big tech? the amendment refers to congress and that's how it's always been treated.
Why does the 14th Amendment apply to Big Tech?
trump's big tech lawsuit is stupid
Posts
Total:
44
-->
@ILikePie5
See United States v. Alvarez (567 US, 2012).
This decision made clear that there are certainly some cases where lying is not protected speech, such as when it’s part of criminal conduct or interferes with the operation of the government, intentionally false statements are simply not a category of speech that gets less protection. Trump lying that he won the 2020 Presidential election is a threat to the stability of the US government. It is quite possible that Trump could be arrested if he testifies in the Supreme Court case
This decision made clear that there are certainly some cases where lying is not protected speech, such as when it’s part of criminal conduct or interferes with the operation of the government, intentionally false statements are simply not a category of speech that gets less protection. Trump lying that he won the 2020 Presidential election is a threat to the stability of the US government. It is quite possible that Trump could be arrested if he testifies in the Supreme Court case
that he did win the 2020 election.
-->
@bmdrocks21
His money-whoring is starting to piss me off.
You could say this about every Republican ever, from day one.
-->
@FLRW
See United States v. Alvarez (567 US, 2012).This decision made clear that there are certainly some cases where lying is not protected speech, such as when it’s part of criminal conduct or interferes with the operation of the government, intentionally false statements are simply not a category of speech that gets less protection. Trump lying that he won the 2020 Presidential election is a threat to the stability of the US government. It is quite possible that Trump could be arrested if he testifies in the Supreme Court casethat he did win the 2020 election.
That case was about the government not Big Tech
-->
@ILikePie5
Justice Kennedy, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Sotomayor, concluded that the Act infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 3–18.
(a) The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656 .
Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.
(a) The Constitution “demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U. S. 656 .
Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent.
Doesn't this sound like incitement?
On Jan. 6, Trump gave a 70-minute speech to the crowd assembled at the Ellipse near the White House. He rambled at length about the details surrounding the supposed election steal, sounding chaotic and deluded to critics.
Yet, to his followers, his ability to reel off statistics, however false, not only evoked his ostensible business expertise but also furnished more evidence for the stolen election. Trump also made numerous statements that could be taken as a call to insurrection: “If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more;” “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules;” “You’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
The implication of the word “our” is that America has fallen into the wrong hands: Democrats, minorities and urban elites. When his supporters chanted “Fight for Trump,” he responded with the approving “Thank you.”
Yet, to his followers, his ability to reel off statistics, however false, not only evoked his ostensible business expertise but also furnished more evidence for the stolen election. Trump also made numerous statements that could be taken as a call to insurrection: “If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more;” “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules;” “You’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
The implication of the word “our” is that America has fallen into the wrong hands: Democrats, minorities and urban elites. When his supporters chanted “Fight for Trump,” he responded with the approving “Thank you.”
-->
@FLRW
Doesn't this sound like incitement?On Jan. 6, Trump gave a 70-minute speech to the crowd assembled at the Ellipse near the White House. He rambled at length about the details surrounding the supposed election steal, sounding chaotic and deluded to critics.Yet, to his followers, his ability to reel off statistics, however false, not only evoked his ostensible business expertise but also furnished more evidence for the stolen election. Trump also made numerous statements that could be taken as a call to insurrection: “If you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more;” “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules;” “You’ll never take back our country with weakness.”The implication of the word “our” is that America has fallen into the wrong hands: Democrats, minorities and urban elites. When his supporters chanted “Fight for Trump,” he responded with the approving “Thank you.”
Again, Alvarez applies to the government not Big Tech. Second the standard for incitement is Brandenburg v Ohio. And if what Trump said classified as incitement then Maxine Waters would be in jail.
The words of politicians have a special class of protection because of the figurative nature. When someone says I’m going to fight Chuck Schumer and the liberals in the Senate, they clearly don’t mean it literally. You need proof that Trump intended for the crowd to do what they did. Speaking of that, where’s the 1400 hours of footage of what happened on that day. Who shot Ashli Babitt?
-->
@ILikePie5
To be clear, even if Trump did not have the specific intent to incite a riot, a riot still occurred and the root cause of it was Trump.
Just wanted to highlight this point in case everyone gets in a mess of legalese and technicalities.
-->
@oromagi
I think I would focus on anti-trust legislation and fully justified Federal anti-trust interventions against a number of big tech giants- Amazon and Facebook are certainly anti-competitive monopolies- perhaps Twitter although I'd have to think that one through. Why change corporate rights to control private content with new law when hundred year old laws are clearly relevant and address the problem of lack of alternative venue much more directly? I know Conservatives despise anti-trust generally but using existing law is more Conservative in principle then designing new laws to achieve desired political outcomes.
I’m actually quite the champion of anti-trust laws. Republicans haven’t generally been in the last few decades, but good ol’ TR was quite the trust buster.
That is a possible good avenue that could fix the issue of their power over discourse. I suppose I discounted anti-trust prematurely.
I suppose my main concern is the urgency of the issue. If we could limit their power to crush competitors, there is still the concern that the competition needs to gain its own power. Facebook, Twitter, etc took well over a decade to get the reach they have.
Since the flow of information is necessary for elections, it might be better to force the companies with the existing infrastructure and audience to comply with 1st Amendment rules.
It could be messy (no option is perfect), but I’d be happy to hear what you think of that.
-->
@ILikePie5
From Trump's speech Jan. 6
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with: We will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.
-->
@FLRW
We will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.
Its obvious Trumpet instigated and propogated USA inssurrection for months to his Trumpeteers. Trumpet also stated that 'we are going to march to the capital } down there or overthere }'...but he never marched with those people.
Trumpet is piece of s*******t and as are those Trumpeteers who espouse and repeat the same non-sense and violence Trumpet espouses. They should all be in special-designed prisons and brought out of the stone age mentality with some fundamental education regarding truths vs immorality of lies.
True some believe whatever they are told by immoral president and immoral republicans, and that is why they need to be educated in prisons designed to educate and instill some morals, like truth.
-->
@bmdrocks21
not sure why u r thinkin the non-gun homicide rate is based on a one year measurement. i cited both the graph and the Atlantic, and i think that kinda source would have argued a trend, not something that could change as easily as a one year measurement.
-->
@bmdrocks21
That is a possible good avenue that could fix the issue of their power over discourse. I suppose I discounted anti-trust prematurely.I suppose my main concern is the urgency of the issue. If we could limit their power to crush competitors, there is still the concern that the competition needs to gain its own power. Facebook, Twitter, etc took well over a decade to get the reach they have.Since the flow of information is necessary for elections, it might be better to force the companies with the existing infrastructure and audience to comply with 1st Amendment rules.
I'd agree that the flow of accurate information is necessary for free and fair elections. Republicans have demonstrated a heedless disregard for accurate information in the age of Trump so I can't say I share your sense of urgency. Nor is it possible for those media goliaths to violate a citizen's FA rights. The Constitution constrains the government from infringing on free speech, not big tech. If big govt. were to force big tech to promote ideas that those giants consider harmful or anti-American that would be an infringement. Any Conservative American will know that while Republicans have been required to eject such principles.
What the GOP wants and ought to have is an at least one rival network- a Hearst to Facebook's Pulitzer, a Fox to YouTube's MSNBC. It doesn't need to be explicitly Republican (Hearst and Pulitzer were mostly on the same side politically), nor ought it be. The competition itself will ensure that unpopular opinion gets expressed. Any Capitalist American will count on that competition while again, Republicans are required to eject any principle that obstructs their path to power.
-->
@ILikePie5
Wanna tell me why private companies cannot limit white people? Or does the 14th Amendment not matter as much as the 1st Amendment
Are you seriously trying to equate a company enforcing its own ToS to a company outright discriminating on the basis of race?
-->
@oromagi
I'd agree that the flow of accurate information is necessary for free and fair elections. Republicans have demonstrated a heedless disregard for accurate information in the age of Trump so I can't say I share your sense of urgency. Nor is it possible for those media goliaths to violate a citizen's FA rights. The Constitution constrains the government from infringing on free speech, not big tech. If big govt. were to force big tech to promote ideas that those giants consider harmful or anti-American that would be an infringement. Any Conservative American will know that while Republicans have been required to eject such principles.
I don't disagree that the FA is for constraining the government, but there is no prohibition on the government from forcing companies to be more lax on their restrictions of speech, as far as I know.
The government shouldn't force companies to promote certain ideas, and I believe that is quite different than forcing companies to not exclusively promote certain ideas.
Furthermore, I don't find a disregard for accurate information to be endemic to the GOP as you seem to imply.
What the GOP wants and ought to have is an at least one rival network- a Hearst to Facebook's Pulitzer, a Fox to YouTube's MSNBC. It doesn't need to be explicitly Republican (Hearst and Pulitzer were mostly on the same side politically), nor ought it be. The competition itself will ensure that unpopular opinion gets expressed. Any Capitalist American will count on that competition while again, Republicans are required to eject any principle that obstructs their path to power.
That's a fine idea, especially if you don't share my urgency, as you said. But if we had to wait a decade for a new rival platform to become truly competitive, that would mean we would have 5 federal elections/2 presidents elected while large firms repress ideas and stories that are unfavorable to what they believe in.
It doesn't really seem to be that far-fetched of an idea to say that: you're an American company, you should adhere to American values (support Free Speech). We already do that in some respects, such as how we have prohibitions on bribery in foreign countries.