> There's literally no way you can read the 1st amendment and think it should apply to non government entities. It specifically mentions congress only.
It already applies to non government entities. Telephone companies can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say. Your power and gas company can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say.
Trump can't even block people on twitter ( a private company ).
The protections the telephone companies have are based on their desire to remain common carrier status, and not being considered curators or providers of the content they carry.
It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too.
These common carriers are private companies, not public companies. They aren't owned by the government. They are owned by private shareholders. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are private companies or non government entities.
> Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.
I never claimed twitter and the vast majority of companies are. I only responded to the assertion that all "non government entities" can censor. I was providing proof that some non government entities cannot censor.
That's not how it works. They can't censor. It's why they don't. Can you show me anyone who has been #Canceled from their phone service? Ever wonder why nobody demanded Harvey Weinstein or Trump lose their phone numbers? Because they can't do it.
If AT&T wants to censor, they have to go find other business. They can't be in the telephone business and censor. It's a lawsuit and possible jail for the execs involved.
People are so desperate to justify censorship that they'll make up nonsense. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe all the pro-censorship nonsense in my thread. The only explanation is bias once again forcing people to make up and accept nonsense.
His point was that the 1st amendment applies only to Congress. There are other laws that apply to other entities, but currently no law prevents Twitter from censoring.
I'm sure there are other nuances, but I'd be willing to say that it depends on if their news feed is 'editorialized' or not (ie, they choose what I see, or I choose what I see ...)
I don't think this is the case, unless the platform is run by the government. The First Amendment applies to restrictions on free speech by the government, and is not related to the actions of private enterprises.
> unless the platform is run by the government. The First Amendment applies to restrictions on free speech by the government, and is not related to the actions of private enterprises.
That's not quite accurate. There is precedence for regulating speech in private media for example, as in the case of broadcast networks. Broadcast TV networks are still restricted on speech/expression to this day, as are radio stations.
There's nothing to say that social networks can't also be brought under the regulation of the FCC and have their speech and terms of service dictated to them. This turns social media platforms into something more like a utility. All users must be treated equally or the platforms get massive fines. If I were attempting to get this through, I'd argue the major social media platforms are natural monopolies due to reinforcing network effects and the finite nature of user time (there can only reasonably be so many large social networks, and the market has already strongly demonstrated globally that that is a very small number). You can replace a natural monopoly with another (an independent Instagram, allowed to evolve as a threat, possibly could have killed Facebook for example and become the new monopoly), but you can't have 100 Facebooks that will all perfectly compete with eachother (some people will argue that in theory you could, but that would never happen in reality). For whatever niche / category / concept they target, social networks inherently trend toward either consolidation of users or death; it's why the Twitter clones were all killed off in the early days when people were still experimenting with that social concept. It's why there are not dozens of large scale YouTube or Reddit or even Stackoverflow clones (the rather brutal combination of network effects and finite user time wins in all cases and you end up with consolidation of users to just a few viable platforms). The market, largely left to sort things out on its own in the social media sphere, has provided a lot of proof that large social media platforms are natural monopolies.
The reason broadcast content was regulated was because broadcast frequencies are a finite, public resource. Internet platforms are neither of those.
Also, the FCC no longer regulates broadcast content. It publicly stated a number of years ago that it does not have the desire to do so. The stations police themselves in order to stay within their perceived community standards to prevent external regulation.
Today, unless a station does something really egregious and congresscritters get involved, there is effectively no content regulation.
In the mid-90's, I was part of a morning radio show that was #2 in a medium-sized East coast market. One day we said "shit" on the air three times to see if this was true. Nothing happened. We didn't hear word one from any listener, manager, or government agency.
It is accurate. Other laws can be created which apply to various other entities, such as corporations. But the 1st amendment specifically applies only to Congress.
