Public or Private? Does the Government have the power to protect speech even on private platforms? - Galt's Gulch

Remove this ad.

2

Public or Private? Does the Government have the power to protect speech even on private platforms?

Posted by blarman 1 year, 2 months ago to Politics

4 comments | Share | Flag

It is an interesting question. If and When does a company get big enough that its reach becomes not merely private but public in nature?

Of course, the other question is why have we not clarified the bill protecting internet service providers to note that editing or suppressing content on such platforms voids these protections - most notably immunity from libel/slander and tax breaks - under that bill?

SOURCE URL: https://rumble.com/v29okqs-babylon-bee-ceo-gives-breathtaking-speech-in-defense-of-our-free-speech.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3

Add Comment

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
1

Posted by mshupe 1 year, 2 months ago

It doesn't. To me, if Congress is going to investigate this, they should start and end with Christopher Wray. Everyone at the FBI who had contact with these companies should be grilled. The goal is to discover the nature and extent of the coercion they pressed.

Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- 1
  
  Posted by blarman 1 year, 2 months ago
  
  While I don't deny that the government involvement is a direct violation of the First Amendment, the speaker in the clip makes the point that insofar as companies (publicly-traded BTW) engage in control of the mediums of conversation and speech, they tread into areas where they take upon themselves a duty to maintain a free society: and that means allowing free speech on equitable terms. I would simply clarify that there is a significant difference between sponsoring and/or curating content such as that engaged in by a media company and simply proving a marketplace for thought to happen. Right now, companies are doing both - and claiming that their activities are protected.
  
  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
  - Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  - 2
    
    Posted by mshupe 1 year, 2 months ago
    
    I'm not sure there's a dime's worth of difference between traditional media (print and broadcast) and new media. If they're in the business of publishing opinions on events and politics, even as a so-called open platform, they shouldn't get special treatment. James Valliant makes a strong case against Section 230. All of them should be government hand's off in a rational society. The FBI is the illegitimate actor here.
    
    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
    - 1
      
      Posted by blarman 1 year, 2 months ago
      
      No one is arguing any different for traditional media companies. The question is more geared around the social media companies: Google, Facebook/Meta, Twitter, etc. In a world where so many people access these platforms, do they have a legal responsibility to abide by their own terms of service and not censor and do the People - through their government - have the right to prosecute them for not upholding Free Speech - especially since they claim protection from libel/slander?
      
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink

Comment hidden.