Current Events > Social media bans do not violate first...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...amendment rights
https://bit.ly/34T8pgA

I think some users and past users need to read this.

access denied

bit ironic

---

yeah but see, that doesn't fit the narrative...

---

TwoDoorPC posted...

access denied

---

How are you seeing "access denied"?

Europe?

Correct, but something being legal is a different discussion from whether something is good.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

How are you seeing "access denied"?

Europe?

Yup. Plenty of America news sites just refuse access outright instead of letting us saying fuck off to collecting my information.

---

Antifar posted...

Correct, but something being legal is a different discussion from whether something is good.

So you don't think it's a good thing?

Funkydog posted...

Yup.

Here you go

VERIFY: Social media bans don't violate First Amendment, here's why

Private companies like Twitter and Facebook are not beholden to the First Amendment like the government.

UPDATE: On Friday, June 4, Facebook announced former President Donald Trump's accounts will be suspended for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on Jan. 7, 2021.

The social media platform also said they are "enforcing new protocols to be applied in exceptional cases such as this, and we are confirming the time-bound penalty consistent with those protocols which we are applying to Mr. Trumps accounts. Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trumps suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols.

PREVIOUS UPDATE: The Oversight Board decided on May 5, 2021, to uphold Facebook's Jan. 7 decision to restrict former President Donald Trump's access to posting content on his Facebook and Instagram accounts.

The Board said in a statement "it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension." They are now asking Facebook to review the matter within six months of their decision in an effort "to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform."

Original report published on January 9, 2021:

Twitter banned President Donald Trumps @realdonaldtrump and @Potus45 accounts on Friday, and also began removing his tweets from the official government accounts @POTUS and @WhiteHouse. Facebook and Instagram have banned him through the presidential transition.

THE QUESTION

Do social media companies violate the First Amendment when they ban or block someone from their platforms?

THE ANSWER

No. Because they are private companies, Twitter, Facebook and other social media can limit speech on their platforms.

WHAT WE FOUND

Social media users who complain that their First Amendment rights have been violated when their posts are removed or their accounts banned have little recourse, experts say.

The First Amendment says that government cant limit our speech. It doesnt say private companies cant limit our speech, the Free Speech Center of Middle Tennessee State University says on its website.

A Congressional Research Service report from March 2019 says people who have posts removed or are banned face two roadblocks. For one, courts have ruled that the First Amendment, which addresses government actions, does not apply to private companies. Second, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, companies can restrict access to objectionable material.

Jay Bender, attorney for the South Carolina Broadcasters Association and a retired law professor, says that had the government instructed Twitter to drop Trumps accounts, that would have been a violation of Trumps First Amendment rights. But Twitter, as a private entity not related to the government, can accept or reject speech as it sees fit.

In May, chafing at social media restrictions on himself and his supporters, Trump issued an executive order on Preventing Online Censorship. But Bender said, Its very clear that the president has no authority to override the Constitution. The order called for a review and creation of a task force, but it does not, and cannot, direct social media platforms to carry speech the platforms choose not to carry, Bender said.

After close review of recent tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence, Twitter said on Friday.

On Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Trump was banned because the risks of allowing the president to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. The block on Trumps Facebook and Instagram accounts will last indefinitely and be until the peaceful transition of power is complete.

And a strict reading of the First Amendments text supports the interpretation by legal experts, the courts, and the social media companies themselves.

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.

Theres no mention of private companies, just Congress.

Funkydog posted...

Plenty of America news sites just refuse access outright instead of letting us saying fuck off to collecting my information.

It's a cost/benefit thing. There's no real gain in a US website targeted at US people, to take on the expense of hiring consultants and lawyers to comply with some European regulation. Far easier and cheaper to just IP-block the entire continent.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Here you go

It's a cost/benefit thing. There's no real gain in a US website target at US people, to take on the expense of hiriing consultants and lawyers to comply with some European regulation. Far easier and cheaper to just IP-block the entire continent.

Oh, for sure. Only really ever seen it with smaller websites without that big cash.

---

HaHaEvents posted...

So you don't think it's a good thing?

The question is: who and for what? It's good that Trump got banned from Twitter! Exactly zero bad came from it!

But also these sites are run by silicon Valley billionaire manchildren and o wouldn't trust them in the abstract not to apply rules and punishments capriciously.

---

I just look at it like this, we agree to terms when we join a site. If we break the rules we know what will happen.
Yes some sites definitely take advantage of it. But if you're spreading misinformation and hatred you deserve your ban.

Bullet_Wing posted...

Is TC ROD?

let's check. Tc what are you feelings on people from India?

---

But apparently you can sue Apple for deliberately violating their terms of use and being banned from their platform.

See: Epic Games.

---

Bullet_Wing posted...

Is TC ROD?

You've asked me this before and I gave you an honest answer. The fact that you believe shadow is weird to me.

And I don't know what the India thing means.

Perhaps not, but freedom of speech is still a universal right that everyone should strive to protect for everyone else, not just the government.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

Perhaps not, but freedom of speech is still a universal right that everyone should strive to protect for everyone else, not just the government.

So it's fine if someone is being racist and hateful cause that's their opinion?

HaHaEvents posted...

You've asked me this before and I gave you an honest answer. The fact that you believe shadow is weird to me.

yeah that's a rod response if i've ever heard one.

---

self censorship is a skill your parents should have taught you as a toddler. don't take their failures out on the rest of us.

---

Medussa posted...

self censorship is a skill your parents should have taught you as a toddler. don't take their failures out on the rest of us.

Yeah but sadly they don't see it that way. They come to the internet and think they can do whatever they want.

Solid Sonic posted...

But apparently you can sue Apple for deliberately violating their terms of use and being banned from their platform.

See: Epic Games.

Yeah thats not what's going on in that lawsuit at all.

Solid Sonic posted...

But apparently you can sue Apple for deliberately violating their terms of use and being banned from their platform.

See: Epic Games.

you can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean you'll win.

---

Paragon21XX posted...

Perhaps not, but freedom of speech is still a universal right that everyone should strive to protect for everyone else, not just the government.

i disagree

the right to control their platform is a matter of free speech for social media companies.


---

Topic hidden.

---

I'd say it violates the spirit of the 1st A just not the letter of the Law

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

I'd say it violates the spirit of the 1st A just not the letter of the Law

The spirit of it was always about the government. It was always about the government cant stop you, nothing about private businesses.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

The spirit of it was always about the government. It was always about the government cant stop you, nothing about private businesses.

Social media is the new public square and honestly Fuck corporations having any more power then they already do

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

I'd say it violates the spirit of the 1st A just not the letter of the Law

i'd say it doesn't, and i'd also say that i don't care what you say

my freedom to tell you off here is limited by the TOS of gamefaqs, just as your freedom to say things with no basis in reality is limited by the TOS of gamefaqs

the only thing that is relevant to the constitution is that the government can't arrest either of us for having differences of opinion, no matter how utterly wrong yours is

---

metallica846 posted...

SPE returns!!

*TQF

---

Sackgurl posted...

i'd say it doesn't, and i'd also say that i don't care what you say

my freedom to tell you off here is limited by the TOS of gamefaqs, just as your freedom to say things with no basis in reality is limited by the TOS of gamefaqs

the only thing that is relevant to the constitution is that the government can't arrest either of us for having differences of opinion, no matter how utterly wrong yours is

Yes let Corporations play the ministry of truth and censor us fantastic idea /s

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

Social media is the new public square and honestly Fuck corporations having any more power then they already do

Do you believe platforms like Facebook and Twitter should be labeled as a utility?

---

People belching "free speech" always make the same mistake of neglecting to read the first two words of the first amendment. Which shuts down any arguments they might have.

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

Yes let Corporations play the ministry of truth and censor us fantastic idea /s

Again, you're free to spout whatever crazy nonsense you want in public spaces or the privacy of your home; you just can't say certain things on certain platforms. Just because you want to say something somewhere you can't doesn't mean you are censored lol.

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

Social media is the new public square and honestly Fuck corporations having any more power then they already do

Are you a joe alt, because that argument only makes sense to joe.

Private corporations arent required to make sure you can have an account, especially when you break their TOS (you as in people who break the TOS, not you specifically).

Get out of here with this public square BS.
---

Lord_Shadow posted...

Social media is the new public square and honestly Fuck corporations having any more power then they already do

you hear that mods, this website is the new public square. so no more modding, and got to get rid of the ignore and block function too, cant restrict peoples right to scream ignorant bullshit at each other!

#freethetiddy
#bringbackmanass

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Are you a joe alt, because that argument only makes sense to joe.

Private corporations arent required to make sure you can have an account, especially when you break their TOS (you as in people who break the TOS, not you specifically).

Get out of here with this public square BS.

If you make a threat of violence are actually harass someone ya ban them. But it's a fucking terrible idea to give Corporation this amount of power

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

If you make a threat of violence are actually harass someone ya ban them. But it's a fucking terrible idea to give Corporation this amount of power

What power. The only power they have is on their website. Twitter cant tell Facebook to ban someone on Facebook or vice-versa.

Dont like it? Follow their TOS. Or make your own site.
---

It's just hypocritical of a social media company to ban Conservatives, since it announced that it wants an open Internet in response to getting banned by a country.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

What power. The only power they have is on their website. Twitter cant tell Facebook to ban someone on Facebook or vice-versa.

Dont like it? Follow their TOS. Or make your own site.

He was garbage but the former president was basically given the internet death penalty and as funny as it is for trump to be banned from everything what happens when someone who actually wants to tax corporations and help the common man gains traction an a election that these Silicon Valley oligarchs don't like. They just mute them and that campaign is dead in the water. We may never get an actual left candidate in office

---

The-Apostle posted...

It's just hypocritical of a social media company to ban Conservatives, since it announced that it wants an open Internet in response to getting banned by a country.

Theyre banning people who dont follow the TOS. The fact that theyre conservative doesnt mean shit.
---

The govt can always create their own social media site that allows anybody to post whatever they could say in public without penalty

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

He was garbage but the former president was basically given the internet death penalty and as funny as it is for trump to be banned from everything what happens when someone who actually wants to tax corporations and help the common man gains traction an a election that these Silicon Valley oligarchs don't like. They just mute them and that campaign is dead in the water. We may never get an actual left candidate in office

Trump didnt want to tax corporations though. Unless they were poor ones. And if you think Trump was actually fighting for the common man, I have a bridge to sell you.

Trump wouldnt have been banned if he wasnt using the platforms as way to spread his hate speech and to fuel insurrectionists. As you saw, he made his own site, but it eventually died because, and this might be crazy to you, but the free market didnt want it. Else he would have driven the traffic there and kept the site.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Trump didnt want to tax corporations though. Unless they were poor ones. And if you think Trump was actually fighting for the common man, I have a bridge to sell you.

Trump wouldnt have been banned if he wasnt using the platforms as way to spread his hate speech and to fuel insurrectionists. As you saw, he made his own site, but it eventually died because, and this might be crazy to you, but the free market didnt want it. Else he would have driven the traffic there and kept the site.

I don't he was banned for being a fucking nut case

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Theyre banning people who dont follow the TOS. The fact that theyre conservative doesnt mean shit.

How many Liberals have they banned for violating TOS?

---

The-Apostle posted...

How many Liberals have they banned for violating TOS?

idk, I dont follow every account that Twitter bans.

Maybe conservatives break the TOS more often than liberals do on Twitter. Ever think about that?
---