At what point is the 1st Amendment being violated?

[CoastalVADawg]

Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, among others have been silencing certain political opinions and COVID opinions for a while now. It’s troubling but as private companies they have a right to silence who they want. I don’t like it. And I do believe politicians are using them to silence certain voices without making it seem the government is behind it. Now we have the White House actively working with social media companies to silence people who are speaking out against COVID vaccines. I am not anti-vaccine, just so everyone knows. I think the COVID vaccines are very promising and would not steer anyone away from getting vaccinated (unless they have already recovered from COVID and have natural immunity). But if this is true, this would be a blatant violation of 1st Amendment rights.

White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers

The White House is asking social media companies to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information as part of President Biden’s “wartime effort&#82…

nypost.com

 

[Zonadog]

There are several problems with the argument that "they are private companies and they can do what they want."

First, they operate under the protection of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Their actions, in order to be protected from liability, have to be in good faith of the best interests of the public.

Second, the recent Time Magazine article confirms that they communicate and take unilateral actions, which is deemed anticompetitive and therefore subjects them to regulation and possible divestiture by the Feds.

Third, they are all publicly traded companies, which means shareholders have the right to question, override, or replace management of each publicly traded entity. While the management of each company presumably protect themselves by controlling as much stock as possible, they are still subject to regulatory scrutiny and must operate in the best interests of stockholders. Alienating half of the potential market for your company's shares is not generally construed as being in the best interests of stockholders.

 

[GrizzDawg]

Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, among others have been silencing certain political opinions and COVID opinions for a while now. It’s troubling but as private companies they have a right to silence who they want. I don’t like it. And I do believe politicians are using them to silence certain voices without making it seem the government is behind it. Now we have the White House actively working with social media companies to silence people who are speaking out against COVID vaccines. I am not anti-vaccine, just so everyone knows. I think the COVID vaccines are very promising and would not steer anyone away from getting vaccinated (unless they have already recovered from COVID and have natural immunity). But if this is true, this would be a blatant violation of 1st Amendment rights.

White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers

The White House is asking social media companies to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information as part of President Biden’s “wartime effort&#82…

nypost.com

They are the new-age robber barons - only worse. They have extended their monopolies to include thought....

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

There are several problems with the argument that "they are private companies and they can do what they want."

First, they operate under the protection of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Their actions, in order to be protected from liability, have to be in good faith of the best interests of the public.

Second, the recent Time Magazine article confirms that they communicate and take unilateral actions, which is deemed anticompetitive and therefore subjects them to regulation and possible divestiture by the Feds.

Third, they are all publicly traded companies, which means shareholders have the right to question, override, or replace management of each publicly traded entity. While the management of each company presumably protect themselves by controlling as much stock as possible, they are still subject to regulatory scrutiny and must operate in the best interests of stockholders. Alienating half of the potential market for your company's shares is not generally construed as being in the best interests of stockholders.

Yep and I also wonder about them applying their TOS equitably. I'm not sure how allowing information about hands up, don't shoot to stand and then censuring an opinion about election fraud could be defended.

 

[shonuff253]

There are several problems with the argument that "they are private companies and they can do what they want."

First, they operate under the protection of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Their actions, in order to be protected from liability, have to be in good faith of the best interests of the public.

Second, the recent Time Magazine article confirms that they communicate and take unilateral actions, which is deemed anticompetitive and therefore subjects them to regulation and possible divestiture by the Feds.

Third, they are all publicly traded companies, which means shareholders have the right to question, override, or replace management of each publicly traded entity. While the management of each company presumably protect themselves by controlling as much stock as possible, they are still subject to regulatory scrutiny and must operate in the best interests of stockholders. Alienating half of the potential market for your company's shares is not generally construed as being in the best interests of stockholders.

If Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act is to be reviewed then Section 501(c)(3) under the Internal Revenue Code governing tax exemptions for religious organizations should also be reviewed.

 

[CoastalVADawg]

Congress Escalates Pressure on Tech Giants to Censor More, Threatening the First Amendment

In their zeal for control over online speech, House Democrats are getting closer and closer to the constitutional line, if they have not already crossed it.

greenwald.substack.com

 

[Va Beach Dawg]

If Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act is to be reviewed then Section 501(c)(3) under the Internal Revenue Code governing tax exemptions for religious organizations should also be reviewed.

Why should planned parenthood get any tax dollars? I am not arguing their right to exist but why give them $620 million when their work ends 350,000 pregnancies per year. I don’t want my tax dollars supporting that industry at all

 

[Dawgdocindosta]

Why should planned parenthood get any tax dollars? I am not arguing their right to exist but why give them $620 million when their work ends 350,000 pregnancies per year. I don’t want my tax dollars supporting that industry at all

I regret that can only give this one “like”! There is zero reason for gov funds to go to this group regardless of your stand on abortion.
JC

 

[BigDawgs2010]

Having a pro-abortion group called "Planned Parenthood" has always confused me.

 

[RoyDawgMercer]

Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, among others have been silencing certain political opinions and COVID opinions for a while now. It’s troubling but as private companies they have a right to silence who they want. I don’t like it. And I do believe politicians are using them to silence certain voices without making it seem the government is behind it. Now we have the White House actively working with social media companies to silence people who are speaking out against COVID vaccines. I am not anti-vaccine, just so everyone knows. I think the COVID vaccines are very promising and would not steer anyone away from getting vaccinated (unless they have already recovered from COVID and have natural immunity). But if this is true, this would be a blatant violation of 1st Amendment rights.

White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers

The White House is asking social media companies to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information as part of President Biden’s “wartime effort&#82…

nypost.com

Nope. “Speech” on a social media sight is not subject to 1st Amendment rights. You said it yourself re “private companies”. End of story.

PS - Not even newspapers can publish lies and it’s why they double source their reports / articles. Journalism 101. Watch “All The President’s Men”.

 

[usernameDawg]

Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, among others have been silencing certain political opinions and COVID opinions for a while now. It’s troubling but as private companies they have a right to silence who they want. I don’t like it. And I do believe politicians are using them to silence certain voices without making it seem the government is behind it. Now we have the White House actively working with social media companies to silence people who are speaking out against COVID vaccines. I am not anti-vaccine, just so everyone knows. I think the COVID vaccines are very promising and would not steer anyone away from getting vaccinated (unless they have already recovered from COVID and have natural immunity). But if this is true, this would be a blatant violation of 1st Amendment rights.

White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers

The White House is asking social media companies to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information as part of President Biden’s “wartime effort&#82…

nypost.com

When the amendment is violated, I suppose.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Captain_Dawg02]

No 1st Amendment rights are violated on an optional to use social media site for violating their TOS. Even "ultra conservative free speech" social media sites are having a hard time keeping it an open and safe environment people will want to join.

The ironic part is that censorship of free speech is by definition a conservative approach to keep "change" from happening (a more liberal approach), yet a political party that is conservative is having issues where they are being censored by perceived liberal platforms.

 

[Zonadog]

No 1st Amendment rights are violated on an optional to use social media site for violating their TOS. Even "ultra conservative free speech" social media sites are having a hard time keeping it an open and safe environment people will want to join.

The ironic part is that censorship of free speech is by definition a conservative approach to keep "change" from happening (a more liberal approach), yet a political party that is conservative is having issues where they are being censored by perceived liberal platforms.

Censorship is not a conservative principle. Conservatives favor free speech and open markets with limited government interference.

There are exceptions, particularly in the case of large organizations with monopolistic power. As with government, restraint of communication and trade by monopolies is not desirable and shouldn't be tolerated in a free society.

 

[Captain_Dawg02]

Censorship is not a conservative principle. Conservatives favor free speech and open markets with limited government interference.

There are exceptions, particularly in the case of large organizations with monopolistic power. As with government, restraint of communication and trade by monopolies is not desirable and shouldn't be tolerated in a free society.

Conservatives as a political ideology within American politics is one thing...being a conservative person (i.e. adverse to change) is another. I am speaking to the latter as it has less ideology conflict and is in such, just a bare definition.

 

[MonolithicDawgX]

Nope. “Speech” on a social media sight is not subject to 1st Amendment rights. You said it yourself re “private companies”. End of story.

PS - Not even newspapers can publish lies and it’s why they double source their reports / articles. Journalism 101. Watch “All The President’s Men”.

Bwahahahahaha! Geez, Roy, even you can't troll like that and not roll over laughing. I am a Grady Grad (newspapers)...are you? Nice try, but only right leaning media attempts

 

[MonolithicDawgX]

Nope. “Speech” on a social media sight is not subject to 1st Amendment rights. You said it yourself re “private companies”. End of story.

PS - Not even newspapers can publish lies and it’s why they double source their reports / articles. Journalism 101. Watch “All The President’s Men”.

Bwahahahahaha! Geez, Roy, even you can't troll like that and not roll over laughing. I am a Grady Grad (newspapers)...are you? Nice try, but only right leaning media attempts 2 sources anymore. The left doesn't get one legit source, as proven repeatedly, maybe 1billion times during Trumps 4+ years. You must sleep tight at night knowing you are comforted by the warm fires of all the right being burned at the stake.

 

[RoyDawgMercer]

And of course you did. When did Grady start teaching comic book fiction writing? The right just makes up news as it goes along just like Trump telling the truth.

 

[Zonadog]

If Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act is to be reviewed then Section 501(c)(3) under the Internal Revenue Code governing tax exemptions for religious organizations should also be reviewed.

501C3 governs all charitable organizations, not just religious organizations. The code has been reviewed numerous times and includes restrictions for how these charitable organizations must conduct their business to retain 501C3 status. That includes prohibitions on partisan political activity and speech. They cannot do whatever they want.

Section 230 hasn't changed at all since it was adopted. It has a long way to go to catch up with 501C3.

 

[macondawg44]

The first amendment is on its 12th month of suspension.

thread over.