Spot the threat to free speech
-
The "It's a private company and they can censor whomever they want" argument has been around since the origin of social media.
As Ax would probably say, "Let POTUS establish his own platform and let it survive or die according to the free market."
But, does there come a time when Twitter, FB or anyone else become the de-facto town square? I don't know, but it's a question that bothers me.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:01 last edited by@George-K said in Spot the threat to free speech:
As Ax would probably say, "Let POTUS establish his own platform and let it survive or die according to the free market."
He wouldn't have to. He could join ThinkSpot today, and many millions would follow him there by the end of the week.
Compare that to the lack of remedy when there is a true free speech threat - if the guys with guns are enforcing things.
-
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:07 last edited by@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I can't make sense out of it. Is Twitter the town hall or the internet? I can see the Internet being considered akin to the public airwaves in many ways, but not in a 'fairness doctrine' sense, since quite literally everybody can and does publish. Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:36 last edited by
-
@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I can't make sense out of it. Is Twitter the town hall or the internet? I can see the Internet being considered akin to the public airwaves in many ways, but not in a 'fairness doctrine' sense, since quite literally everybody can and does publish. Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:45 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:48 last edited by@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
-
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 14:52 last edited by@Horace said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@Jolly said in Spot the threat to free speech:
It's not an unconstitutional argument. Social media at the level of Twitter does function as a town square. At a certain point, an argument can be made for the internet being somewhat akin to radio or tv, operating on the public spectrum.
I'm pretty sure jon considers that a reasonable viewpoint in other contexts.
I'm not sure how you could possibly get around it.
-
@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Broadcast was different because of scarcity.
CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio
Twitter vs TNCR
In the days when it was CBS/NBC/ABC vs ham radio we had the fairness doctrine.
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:01 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:23 last edited by
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
-
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:35 last edited by@Copper said in Spot the threat to free speech:
@jon-nyc said in Spot the threat to free speech:
The need for it was diminished with cable, and died with the internet.
I think that is the question, has Twitter gotten to the size that once again raises the need?
Ironically Mr. Trump has probably influenced it's size.
Twitter is like 7th largest social media site, excluding the foreign ones that aren't in use here.
If twitter is too large and needs the government to control its content surely Fox News does too.
-
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:39 last edited by jon-nyc@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
When someone does something to hinder free speech (Twitter) a person who speaks up about it and vows to stop them from doing it again (Trump) that person is not guilty of hindering free speech, but of taking action against the blocking of free speech. It's just like man A walks up to man B and hits him in the face with his fist, man B then hits him back, and you're trying to accuse man B of starting a fight.
Man A vs Man B analogy fails. This is Government vs Man.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:42 last edited by
I didn't know Twitter was a government agency... because you see, it was Twitter that made the first punch.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:44 last edited by
The seventh largest social media site adding commentary to someone's unedited post isn't a threat to free speech.
The men with guns, or the rules enforced my men in suits with the implied power of the men with guns behind them, is the threat to free speech.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:44 last edited by
We’ve created social platforms that are a perfect host for outside influences to polarize our society. Much of twitter and Facebook is not Americans expressing their right to free speech but meddling and manipulating. The evidence for this in bots is quite clear.
Second the right to free speech as a person is not the right of anonymous entity to spew polarizing garbage to millions of people. I don’t think the Constitution provides protection for that.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:47 last edited by jon-nyc
@Loki To be serious I'm dead-dog certain there have been court cases on whether you lose your right to free speech if publishing anonymously and there's no way the courts would have ever allowed that. I think if you reflected on it for a while you wouldn't be for it either.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:48 last edited by
Nope. I'm saying that Twitter tried to limit Trumps free speech, and he has a right to strike back. No, he has an obligation to strike back. We all have the same obligation. If you don't fight against attempts to limit freedom of speech, you will lose it.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:52 last edited by
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:53 last edited by xenon
Right - but there's a more basic issue at play here first.
Twitter is more akin to a bar.
The barkeep reigns supreme in the bar and can tell you to GTFO whenever they want. That's not a first amendment issue.
Do we want government to regulate social media as a first step?
-
wrote on 27 May 2020, 15:55 last edited by
@Larry said in Spot the threat to free speech:
Free speech means free speech. In my way of seeing that, it's none of the courts' business.
Well, the courts only get involved when the government tries to limit it. So, if you believe in free speech the courts are your friend.