‘Stop Social Media Censorship Act’ Introduced To Halt Google, Twitter, Facebook Censorship

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
638
448
845
Ottawa, Canada
#51
It’s not the same thing and you know it. And no one gives a shit about your tactical ”muh private company”, Libertarian arguments.
It's not about goddamn libertarianism, it's the implications of telling companies that they should be forced to carry content they don't want to carry when excluding that content isn't otherwise illegal. I don't want to give the US government an invitation to editorialize, which is exactly what would happen here.

Thankfully, this is a state bill and likely to fail. Actual freedom of speech will be preserved.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#52
It's not about goddamn libertarianism, it's the implications of telling companies that they should be forced to carry content they don't want to carry when excluding that content isn't otherwise illegal. I don't want to give the US government an invitation to editorialize, which is exactly what would happen here.
And how exactly does the US government get to editorialize through a law which doesn't prevent any speech, only allows more of it?

Thankfully, this is a state bill and likely to fail. Actual freedom of speech will be preserved.
You have an extremely warped idea of what freedom of speech is.
 
Jul 19, 2018
871
520
230
#54
It's not about goddamn libertarianism, it's the implications of telling companies that they should be forced to carry content they don't want to carry when excluding that content isn't otherwise illegal. I don't want to give the US government an invitation to editorialize, which is exactly what would happen here.

Thankfully, this is a state bill and likely to fail. Actual freedom of speech will be preserved.
You are still making a Libertarian argument. Since you are not one, it rings kinda hollow. The difference between social media giants, and newspapers has been pointed out several times. Social media is more like a phone line, electricity at this point. Another thing you ignore is social media companies are protected like a service provider.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,464
2,836
230
#55
Thankfully, this is a state bill and likely to fail. Actual freedom of speech will be preserved.
"Actual freedom of speech" is corporations controlling speech, and censoring anyone who disagrees with them?

Not even libertarian go that far.

sounds like she broke the rules. why are you quoting a news article at me like it's some gotcha? don't be a weirdo.
Way to miss the point
 
Last edited:
Likes: DeepEnigma
Mar 3, 2010
27,446
232
690
#56
Redefining private platforms into public ones based on userbase is a pretty tricky attempt that will very likely need a consititutional amendment. There isn't enough political will for this at present either, and most users abide by these companies' terms and conditions to begin with.

It being a soft cap on private tech companies' power is interesting (if not arbitrarily decided), and the idea of regulating the tech giants is a valid one. But this almost definitely isn't the way.
 
Dec 3, 2018
1,701
2,947
230
#57
Redefining private platforms into public ones based on userbase is a pretty tricky attempt that will very likely need a consititutional amendment.
It isn't redefining anything. There's already precedence for this. See Marsh v Alabama, which had this to say "“the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”" Also, "This Court has held, in Marsh v. Alabama (1946), that under some circumstances property that is privately owned may, at least for First Amendment purposes, be treated as though it were publicly held."

Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza reinforced it. "Since the shopping center serves as the community business block "and is freely accessible and open to the people in the area and those passing through," Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 508, the State may not delegate the power, through the use of trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights on the premises in a manner"
 
Likes: DeepEnigma