« prev   random   next »


Save the Constitution From Big Tech

By FuckCCP89 follow FuckCCP89   2021 Jan 12, 12:19am 229 views   5 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    

Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation.

By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld
Jan. 11, 2021 12:45 pm ET

Facebook and Twitter banned President Trump and numerous supporters after last week’s disgraceful Capitol riot, and Google, Apple and Amazon blocked Twitter alternative Parler—all based on claims of “incitement to violence” and “hate speech.” Silicon Valley titans cite their ever-changing “terms of service,” but their selective enforcement suggests political motives.

Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.

It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.

The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action. In Railway Employees’ Department v. Hanson (1956), they found state action in private union-employer closed-shop agreements—which force all employees to join the union—because Congress had passed a statute immunizing such agreements from liability under state law. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association(1989), the court again found state action in private-party conduct—drug tests for company employees—because federal regulations immunized railroads from liability if they conducted those tests. In both cases, as with Section 230, the federal government didn’t mandate anything; it merely pre-empted state law, protecting certain private parties from lawsuits if they engaged in the conduct Congress was promoting.

Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored.

1   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Jan 12, 9:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

FuckCCP89 says
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored.

The irony!

"Censor people we don't like, or we will censor you by making you liable for everything anyone says."
3   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Jul 20, 5:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      


New Jersey State Senator Declan O’Scanlon was silenced on Twitter and was only reinstated when he agreed to delete his tweet.

The tweet, posted on June 25, read “Given that we have crushed Covid with combination of natural immunity and voluntary uptake there is no reason anyone should be compelled to take the vaccine. Restrictions/mandates/vaccine passports all uncalled for.”

Twitter’s response to O’Scanlon’s Twitter post was to lock him out of his account without giving a specific reason as to why.

Never post anything to Twitter.
5   Patrick   ignore (1)   2021 Aug 4, 1:12pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      


Trump Big Tech censorship lawsuit amended to include 65,000 censorship stories from American citizens

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions