Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

***Official*** Free Speech Thread

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:
57 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

There's no "potentially" about it.  This is literally exactly what prompted the Citizens United case in the first place.

Just to clarify- this film would supposedly come out in September 2018, right?  Trump isn't on the ballot in 2018.  Does this alter the Citizens United analysis at all? Would it still be protected from the law that the decision struck down because it's not "electioneering" w/r/t a candidate within X days from that candidate facing election?  I honestly don't know.

Under the law that was struck down in Citizens United, the Michael Moore movie about Trump wouldn't be prohibited. Mainly because, as far as I know, it's going to be distributed in theaters rather than broadcast by satellite or cable or radio waves. Additionally, Trump isn't a candidate in any 2018 election. If the movie were to be broadcast rather than being shown in theaters, it would be prohibited in the couple months leading up to the election if it mentioned (by name or nickname or other identifying information) or depicted any people who are up for election. So it couldn't mention someone like Jim Jordan or Dana Rohrabacher. Even if it were just about Trump, it couldn't be shown on Netflix, etc., in the fall of 2020.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Under the law that was struck down in Citizens United, the Michael Moore movie about Trump wouldn't be prohibited. Mainly because, as far as I know, it's going to be distributed in theaters rather than broadcast by satellite or cable or radio waves. Additionally, Trump isn't a candidate in any 2018 election. If the movie were to be broadcast rather than being shown in theaters, it would be prohibited in the couple months leading up to the election if it mentioned (by name or nickname or other identifying information) or depicted any people who are up for election. So it couldn't mention someone like Jim Jordan or Dana Rohrabacher. Even if it were just about Trump, it couldn't be shown on Netflix, etc., in the fall of 2020.

However: the election law could be expanded to include any production - in any media. Once the rule that corporate expenditures could be limited was established this and any movie or other media could be included. I'd also add that an anti-Trump movie could itself be viewed as affecting any given race in any given market, so the rule would just be up for enforcement depending on how the FEC would have seen fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

However: the election law could be expanded to include any production - in any media. Once the rule that corporate expenditures could be limited was established this and any movie or other media could be included. I'd also add that an anti-Trump movie could itself be viewed as affecting any given race in any given market, so the rule would just be up for enforcement depending on how the FEC would have seen fit.

Yes, you're correct on the first point. The constitutional issue in Citizens United didn't have anything to do with broadcasts versus in-theater screenings versus books versus newspapers. If it had been decided the other way, it would have given Congress the authority to prohibit showing an anti-Trump movie before an election in which Trump was a candidate.

On the second point, though, under the statute in question, it didn't matter whether the movie affected the race. It mattered whether the movie referred to a candidate (and precisely defined those terms). Under a different statute, I don't know how the constitutional limitations would have been demarcated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Judge orders L.A. Times to alter story about Glendale cop, sparking protest from newspaper

A federal judge on Saturday ordered the Los Angeles Times to remove information from an article that described a plea agreement between prosecutors and a Glendale police detective accused of working with the Mexican Mafia, a move the newspaper decried as highly unusual and unconstitutional. ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Tracey‏ @mtracey 

Can’t wait to hear all the convoluted rationalizations for why prosecuting Assange #actually isn’t a threat to press freedom, even though WikiLeaks is indisputably responsible for some of the biggest stories of the past decade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theintercept.com/2018/07/21/ecuador-will-imminently-withdraw-asylum-for-julian-assange-and-hand-him-over-to-the-uk-what-comes-next/

But the U.S. Justice Department has never wanted to indict and prosecute anyone for the crime of publishing such material, contenting themselves instead to prosecuting the government sources who leak it. Their reluctance has been due to two reasons: first, media outlets would argue that any attempts to criminalize the mere publication of classified or stolen documents is barred by the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment, a proposition the DOJ has never wanted to test; second, no DOJ has wanted as part of its legacy the creation of a precedent that allows the U.S. Government to criminally prosecute journalists and media outlets for reporting classified documents.

But the Trump administration has made clear that they have no such concerns. Quite the contrary: last April, Trump’s then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now his Secretary of State, delivered a deranged, rambling, highly threatening broadside against WikiLeaks. Without citing any evidence, Pompeo decreed that WikiLeaks is “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” and thus declared: “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.”

The long-time right-wing Congressman, now one of Trump’s most loyal and favored cabinet officials, also explicitly rejected any First Amendment concerns about prosecuting Assange, arguing that while WikiLeaks “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice . . . they may have believed that, but they are wrong.”

Pompeo then issued this bold threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

Trump’s Attorney General Jeff Sessions has similarly vowed not only to continue and expand the Obama DOJ’s crackdown on sources, but also to consider the prosecution of media outlets that publish classified information. It would be incredibly shrewd for Sessions to lay the foundation for doing so by prosecuting Assange first, safe in the knowledge that journalists themselves – consumed with hatred for Assange due to personal reasons, professional jealousies, and anger over the role they believed he played in 2016 in helping Hillary Clinton lose – would unite behind the Trump DOJ and in support of its efforts to imprison Assange. //

But there seems little question that, as Sessions surely knows, large numbers of U.S. journalists – along with many, perhaps most, Democrats – would actually support the Trump DOJ in prosecuting Assange for publishing documents. After all, the DNC sued WikiLeaks in April for publishing documents – a serious, obvious threat to press freedom – and few objected.

And it was Democratic Senators such as Dianne Feinstein who, during the Obama years, were urging the prosecution of WikiLeaks, with the support of numerous GOP Senators. There is no doubt that, after 2016, support among both journalists and Democrats for imprisoning Assange for publishing documents would be higher than ever. //

All of this means that it is highly likely that Assange – under his best-case scenario – faces at least another year in prison, and will end up having spent a decade in prison despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. He has essentially been punished – imprisoned – by process.

And while it is often argued that Assange has only himself to blame, it is beyond doubt, given the Grand Jury convened by the Obama DOJ and now the threats of Pompeo and Sessions, that the fear that led Assange to seek asylum in the first place – being extradited to the U.S. and politically persecuted for political crimes – was well-grounded.

But if, as seems quite likely, the Trump administration finally announces that it intends to prosecute Assange for publishing classified U.S. Government documents, we will be faced with the bizarre spectacle of U.S. journalists – who have spent the last two years melodramatically expressing grave concern over press freedom due to insulting tweets from Donald Trump about Wolf Blitzer and Chuck Todd or his mean treatment of Jim Acosta – possibly cheering for a precedent that would be the gravest press freedom threat in decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Michael Tracey‏ @mtracey 

Can’t wait to hear all the convoluted rationalizations for why prosecuting Assange #actually isn’t a threat to press freedom, even though WikiLeaks is indisputably responsible for some of the biggest stories of the past decade

Isn't wikileaks referenced in the vault 7 leaker indictment?

- eta - Yep Count 2. (It's not WL by name, but the allegation is transmittal of classified information to someone not entitled to receive it "which information the defendant had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.") Obviously Schulte delivered that information to WL, that's the Vault 7 leak on WL.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Isn't wikileaks referenced in the vault 7 leaker indictment?

- eta - Yep Count 2. (It's not WL by name, but the allegation is transmittal of classified information to someone not entitled to receive it "which information the defendant had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.") Obviously Schulte delivered that information to WL, that's the Vault 7 leak on WL.

nice catch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Michael Tracey‏ @mtracey 

Can’t wait to hear all the convoluted rationalizations for why prosecuting Assange #actually isn’t a threat to press freedom, even though WikiLeaks is indisputably responsible for some of the biggest stories of the past decade

The rationalizations aren't convoluted. They can basically be summed up as "Journalists who break the law tend to get arrested".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The rationalizations aren't convoluted. They can basically be summed up as "Journalists who break the law tend to get arrested".

This doesn't explain how criminalizing journalists for publishing the wrong type of material is not a direct, existential threat to freedom of press.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ren hoek said:
45 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

The rationalizations aren't convoluted. They can basically be summed up as "Journalists who break the law tend to get arrested".

This doesn't explain how criminalizing journalists for publishing the wrong type of material is not a direct, existential threat to freedom of press. 

Actually it explains it perfectly and succinctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 0:23 AM, ren hoek said:

This doesn't explain how criminalizing journalists for publishing the wrong type of material is not a direct, existential threat to freedom of press.  

This isn’t really complicated for me, and I think I’ve pointed out that we actually dealt with this situation a number of years ago in NO. City records were stolen, while a crime publishing them was not because they were still public records subject to public records laws. By the same token WL/Assange is not in trouble for republishing Hillary’s State Department emails which after all were already published by Foia. They’re in trouble for publishing stolen private data. You can’t do that, no more than you can steal and give away food or tv’s or furniture just because some people don’t have them. It’s theft and then dealing in stolen property which isn’t otherwise ‘public.’ 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Trump continues to demand WaPo be treated as a lobbyist requiring registration.

- This is the most dangerous thing I’ve ever seen or read from a Free Speech perspective.

Does anybody take him seriously on this stuff? Trump supporters will repeat some pretty ridiculous stuff about FISA applications and whatnot, but I don't remember seeing even the most ardent Trump supporters defending his reasoning that Amazon should be ambushed (re antitrust or postal rates) because WaPo won't repeat talking points from Fox News.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Trump continues to demand WaPo be treated as a lobbyist requiring registration.

- This is the most dangerous thing I’ve ever seen or read from a Free Speech perspective.

Yep.  It's one thing for the president to complain about a particular story or about media bias in general -- all presidents have done that to varying degrees.  The problem here is that the president is intent on attacking one particular media outlet over and over again merely for being owned by a guy he doesn't like.  At some point, it goes from regular grousing about "the media" into a legitimate first amendment issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Does anybody take him seriously on this stuff? Trump supporters will repeat some pretty ridiculous stuff about FISA applications and whatnot, but I don't remember seeing even the most ardent Trump supporters defending his reasoning that Amazon should be ambushed (re antitrust or postal rates) because WaPo won't repeat talking points from Fox News.

I really don’t care, but yeah I think ultimately he’s introducing this idea into the right wing and it’s pulled directly from the dictator’s handbook. I think a president calling for regulation of any press or publisher is a very dangerous and undemocratic thing.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Does anybody take him seriously on this stuff? Trump supporters will repeat some pretty ridiculous stuff about FISA applications and whatnot, but I don't remember seeing even the most ardent Trump supporters defending his reasoning that Amazon should be ambushed (re antitrust or postal rates) because WaPo won't repeat talking points from Fox News.

Just wait, its coming.  My main Trump friend has an uncanny knack for prioritizing which talking points will be topic du jour and if Trump pushes this one a little harder this will taker center stage.  Right in line with how unfair the press is treating Trump after he made nice with Putin, they're not giving the poor guy a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This isn’t really complicated for me, and I think I’ve pointed out that we actually dealt with this situation a number of years ago in NO. City records were stolen, while a crime publishing them was not because they were still public records subject to public records laws. By the same token WL/Assange is not in trouble for republishing Hillary’s State Department emails which after all were already published by Foia. They’re in trouble for publishing stolen private data. You can’t do that, no more than you can steal and give away food or tv’s or furniture just because some people don’t have them. It’s theft and then dealing in stolen property which isn’t otherwise ‘public.’ 

If it's would-be public officials, which anyone engaged in a political campaign is, it could still ostensibly fall under public interest.  

What you're basically saying is that political figures can't have any private information reported on, regardless of how politically relevant it is to the billion dollar campaign they are running, as long as they are out of office and using their own gmail accounts.  Regardless of the journalist not being personally involved in or even having knowledge of how the information was collected.  

If, say,  hacked information was transmitted anonymously to a securedrop, then the journalist is on the hook even though they could theoretically have no idea how the documents were acquired in your version of free speech.  I think that's a bad precedent and not really in the spirit of the first amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

If it's would-be public officials, which anyone engaged in a political campaign is, it could still ostensibly fall under public interest.  

What you're basically saying is that political figures can't have any private information reported on, regardless of how politically relevant it is to the billion dollar campaign they are running, as long as they are out of office and using their own gmail accounts.  Regardless of the journalist not being personally involved in or even having knowledge of how the information was collected.  ...

Technically they can't, that's correct.

However if it's a public issue and arose when they were a public official - it does not matter if it's on their private email, on their private computer, on their twitter account, or wherever. So for instance I and you would probably agree that Hillary's actual work as SOS on her private email and from her private server was indeed public.

I think an interesting point about "would-be public officials" as you put it though would be what to do with the Trump transition team's data? I think I would agree that is public data - maybe - but it depends. I actually think that could be a big issue if the Mueller team ever gets to prosecuting people for actual so-called collusion. It’s sort of the obverse of what Hillary did, they were not yet public officials, so still private, but availing themselves of public servers.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

If, say,  hacked information was transmitted anonymously to a securedrop, then the journalist is on the hook even though they could theoretically have no idea how the documents were acquired in your version of free speech.  I think that's a bad precedent and not really in the spirit of the first amendment. 

I just want to say this is a very good point, and I think you're right on this. That is a tough one. Journalists have information brought to them and they often do not know the derivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SaintsInDome2006 said:


I just want to say this is a very good point, and I think you're right on this. That is a tough one. Journalists have information brought to them and they often do not know the derivation.


It would seem to me that the difference between a legit journalist (an American one, at least) and a place like WikiLeaks is that a journalist would attempt to verify information and follow the legal requirements before publishing it. And if, during the course of the verification process, a source tells them that the information is classified or privileged or whatever, then the journalist would consult with their publisher's legal team before deciding what to publish.

I don't think WikiLeaks goes to those lengths.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just want to say this is a very good point, and I think you're right on this. That is a tough one. Journalists have information brought to them and they often do not know the derivation.

Greenwald made the same point in the article above, so it wasn't mine.  It could incriminate a lot of publishers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judges Hear Warning on Prosecution of WikiLeaks

July 24, 2018MARIA DINZEO

ANAHEIM, Calif. (CN) – Prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents related to the 2016 presidential election would set a terrible precedent for journalists, the top lawyer for The New York Times said Tuesday.

Addressing a room full of federal and circuit judges at the Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference, David McCraw, the deputy general counsel for The New York Times, explained that regardless of how one feels about Assange and traditional news outlets receiving the same kind of deference over publishing leaked materials, his prosecution would be a gut punch to free speech.

“I think the prosecution of him would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers,” McCraw said. “From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”

McCraw went on to clarify that while Assange employs certain methods that he finds discomfiting and irresponsible, such as dumping unredacted documents revealing the personal information of ordinary people, Assange should be afforded the same protections as a traditional journalist.

“Do I wish journalism was practiced in a certain way, like it is with The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal? Of course. But I also think new ways of publishing have their value. Our colleagues who are not only challenging us financially but journalistically have raised an awareness that there are different ways to report,” McCraw said.

“But if someone is in the business of publishing information, I think that whatever privilege happens to apply – whatever extension of the law that would apply – should be there. Because the question isn’t whether he’s a journalist. It’s that instance was he committing an act of journalism.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/judges-hear-warning-on-prosecution-of-wikileaks/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't given the issue a ton of thought, but I don't think anyone should be liable just for publishing true information. If all WikiLeaks did was publish stuff it got from another source, I think it should be legally in the clear.

But the hacking was illegal. And the foreign interference in the election was illegal. So if WikiLeaks conspired or aided or abetted with the hacking or interference (including after the fact), that could subject it to criminal liability. For example, if they timed the release of documents not to maximize the usefulness of the information it was disseminating, but instead to maximize the effect of the interference in the election, that would probably not be protected by the First Amendment.

But I'd have to think about it some more.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bananafish said:

This sentence perplexes me. 

Me too. I mean, I guess I can[t event =========type at this time. 

Ridiculous to send a journalist down. I don't know what to say.  

So drunk, bud.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bananafish said:

This sentence perplexes me. 

I should clarify. That's astounding the WH asks that. It's...stunning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venting about press, Trump has repeatedly sought to ban reporters over questions

>>President Trump has sought repeatedly to punish journalists for the way they ask him questions, directing White House staff to ban those reporters from covering official events or to revoke their press credentials, according to several current and former administration officials.

At various moments throughout his presidency, Trump has vented angrily to aides about what he considers disrespectful behavior and impertinent questions from reporters in the Oval Office and in other venues. He has also asked that retaliatory action be taken against them.

“These people shouting questions are the worst,” Trump has said, according to a current official. “Why do we have them in here?”

...

As president, Trump has not stripped any news organization of its credentials at the White House, which is a public institution rather than a private campaign. But throughout his 18 months in office, he has privately discussed with aides retaliating against individual journalists, officials said.

Among those who have angered Trump are reporters from CNN, NBC News and The Post, officials said. Two reporters in particular have drawn the president’s ire on multiple occasions: Jim Acosta, CNN’s chief White House correspondent, and April Ryan, Washington bureau chief for American Urban Radio Networks and a CNN contributor. 

...

Behind closed doors, Trump often has vented about these types of encounters. He has asked, “Is there nothing that we could do?” according to a former White House official.

Trump has told aides to revoke credentials, deny access to upcoming events or contemplate other punishments, but it was not always clear to them whether he was issuing an order or merely letting off steam.

...Earlier this month, as The Post has previously reported, Trump grumbled to aides about a question he was asked by Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire at his Helsinki news conference with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.

...Lemire asked whether Trump would, “with the whole world watching,” denounce Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. The president demurred and later complained to aides that Lemire had been called on, rather than someone more likely to lodge a softball question. Aides told the president that most journalists would have asked a similarly tough question. ...<<

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the banning of Alex Jones from multiple platforms, the age of a censored internet takes another step forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2018 at 8:11 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

In any other administration, this would be a scandal. 

Or not

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news/

“Tension between presidents and the press is as old as the Republic. FDR was so incensed by the war reporting of one New York Daily News correspondent he tried to present him with an Iron Cross from Nazi Germany. John Kennedy tried to get New York Timesman David Halberstam pulled out of Vietnam; and Vice-President Spiro Agnew's assaults on the network press is legendary.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rove! said:

With the banning of Alex Jones from multiple platforms, the age of a censored internet takes another step forward

I was suspended by FBG's before, for a whole day or three.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rove! said:

With the banning of Alex Jones from multiple platforms, the age of a censored internet takes another step forward

Alex Jones deliberately chose to distribute his content on platforms that moderate content. He could have chosen completely uncensored distribution methods (4chan, darkweb, foreign servers, etc.) and yet he didn't.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that Jones chose to get banned in a desperate attempt to generate attention and make himself look like a martyr. Jones knows exactly what he's doing.

I mean, if you sign up to Footballguys and immediately start violating the terms & conditions, you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself having a nice season.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Alex Jones deliberately chose to distribute his content on platforms that moderate content. He could have chosen completely uncensored distribution methods (4chan, darkweb, foreign servers, etc.) and yet he didn't.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that Jones chose to get banned in a desperate attempt to generate attention and make himself look like a martyr. Jones knows exactly what he's doing.

I mean, if you sign up to Footballguys and immediately start violating the terms & conditions, you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself having a nice season.

Which specific terms of service did he violate on all of the mainstream platforms within a 12 hour period?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rove! said:

Which specific terms of service did he violate on all of the mainstream platforms within a 12 hour period?

what part of "moderate content" are you having trouble with?  Are you suggesting that those platforms do not have the right to do so?  And to change/enforce the terms upon which they do so at their discretion?  

Edited by zoonation
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rove! said:

Which specific terms of service did he violate on all of the mainstream platforms within a 12 hour period?

I don't work for those companies so I wouldn't be able to provide the specific terms that he violated. But feel free to ask them yourself.

Nonetheless, I support the right of private businesses to choose their own rules. What kind of person wouldn't?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rove! said:

With the banning of Alex Jones from multiple platforms, the age of a censored internet takes another step forward

Its not a censored internet. Alex Jones is free to set up his own website and control the content as he sees fit. Just like FB, Twitter and others are free to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rove! said:

With the banning of Alex Jones from multiple platforms, the age of a censored internet takes another step forward

I’m very sensitive to this subject. I’d probably argue that private platforms can have quasi-public 1st Amendment protections. However Jones’ claims are harassing, especially to the Sandy Hook families. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’d probably argue that private platforms can have quasi-public 1st Amendment protections.

I'd argue against this pretty hard. I cherish free-speech principles in general, not just in the context of government censorship, but "Congress shall make no law" (as incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to all state actors) shouldn't mean Facebook or Twitter. If Twitter starts arbitrarily censoring people, it can lose market share to more reasonable platforms. That's the market solution. Let different platforms compete with each other on the basis of sensible rules rather than having the government determine what those rules should be.

I certainly wouldn't want Congress to tell me that I'm not allowed to ban a rude, disruptive troll here. That's for Joe and David to decide, not Mitch McConnell, no matter how big FBG gets. If anything, the First Amendment should protect platforms' decisions to ban trolls and other unwanted participants: Free speech should include not only the right to publish content over the objection of Congress, but also the right to refuse publishing content over the objection of Congress.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'd argue against this pretty hard. I cherish free-speech principles in general, not just in the context of government censorship, but "Congress shall make no law" (as incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to all state actors) shouldn't mean Facebook or Twitter. If Twitter starts arbitrarily censoring people, it can lose market share to more reasonable platforms. That's the market solution. Let different platforms compete with each other on the basis of sensible rules rather than having the government determine what those rules should be.

I certainly wouldn't want Congress to tell me that I'm not allowed to ban a rude, disruptive troll here. That's for Joe and David to decide, not Mitch McConnell, no matter how big FBG gets. If anything, the First Amendment should protect platforms' decisions to ban trolls and other unwanted participants: Free speech should include not only the right to publish content over the objection of Congress, but also the right to refuse publishing content over the objection of Congress.

Eh, I don't think our little band of 20-50 political commenters would fit what I had in mind. And I also wouldn't make it limitless.

- eta - Just as an example, what about public broadcast tv (VHF/UHF) - can a tv network actually deny even advertising or  commercial access to someone based on ideology? How about general content, like news and shows?

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I'd argue against this pretty hard. I cherish free-speech principles in general, not just in the context of government censorship, but "Congress shall make no law" (as incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to all state actors) shouldn't mean Facebook or Twitter. If Twitter starts arbitrarily censoring people, it can lose market share to more reasonable platforms. That's the market solution. Let different platforms compete with each other on the basis of sensible rules rather than having the government determine what those rules should be.

I certainly wouldn't want Congress to tell me that I'm not allowed to ban a rude, disruptive troll here. That's for Joe and David to decide, not Mitch McConnell, no matter how big FBG gets. If anything, the First Amendment should protect platforms' decisions to ban trolls and other unwanted participants: Free speech should include not only the right to publish content over the objection of Congress, but also the right to refuse publishing content over the objection of Congress.

In nearly all cases when FBG has taken action on an account, the moderator could point out a clear violation of the terms of service.  Terms of service can be seen as a contract and when that contract is violated, actions are taken on accounts.

Did Infowars violate a term of service on these all of the mainstream platforms?

When sites get selective with how they moderate based on allowing content over whether they like that content, do they risk becoming a publisher rather than a platform? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/29/twitter-urged-responsible-online-abuse

https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-is-responsible-for-the-content-on-its-platform-2018-4

would any of you afford an ISP the same privilege to block content of sites they don’t like?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rove! said:

With the banning of Alex Jones from multiple platforms, the age of a censored internet takes another step forward

What does that have to do with free speech?

Or censorship?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rove! said:

Elizabeth Heng, Congressional Candidate, blocked by FaceBook

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/heng-gets-facebook-blocked/

Actually I think I agree with this, but FB has had this problem recently. Here's the message Heng got. - I saw recently where the DOI was blocked recently by FB (I think) because it contains words about revolution and such. Live by the algorithm, die by the algorithm. Now that they are trying to 'fix' their system they are filtering out things they shouldn't. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Murphy

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.

5:26 PM · Aug 6, 2018

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked/

Good news, Senate Democrats are looking to save us from Russian bots even harder in the near future.  Mark Warner, who confirmed the torturer to cia and has been a leading figure against the Russian menace, has drafted policy proposals to protect us from disinformation.  

The panic over fake news and Russian desenformatya has been a great success.  With any luck, online platforms will be subject to rigorous audits and regulation by the FTC, held liable for certain types of content not taken down by demand, forced to log the identity and location of its users' posts, along with a whole host of arbitrary rules and other compliance.  

Oh well, as long as it protects us from Putin I guess.  Nice work resisters, good job. ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.