LogFAQs > #906373850

@KhanJohnny posted...

Squidkids posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Heineken14 posted...

KhanJohnny posted...

Yeah I have no issue at all defending the right of reprehensible people to have access to speech platforms.

So, you're fine with forcing these companies to allow people to break their TOS and force them to host everyone's media? Where do you draw the line? Do you force them to allow extremist groups on their platform?

Absolutely.

Anything that is protected under the First Amendment should be protected by Facebook.

Being an extremist and spreading extremist literature/points of view, including terroristic ones, are well-protected under the First Amendment, and therefore should be on large social media corporations as well.

You do not understand the first amendment do you?

I'm a law student and have taken two First Amendment classes already, but maybe I just don't get it.

Then you need to study harder, because you clearly do not understand the full picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
False statements of fact
Main article: False statements of fact

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9]

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of factthose that may just have a "false factual connotation"still could fall under this exception.[13][14]

There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yniul1YEBUE" data-time="
---

Be a team player, guard those super jump rings. See a team member inking a wall to swim up on? ink with them. Ink your foes into ash. http://tinyurl.com/z7hbzrr