1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[NCAC] PRIVATE CENSORSHIP – FIGHTING SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Mar 8, 2021.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    blog posting by the National Coalition Against Censorship:

    https://ncac.org/news/blog/private-...pression-of-speech-by-non-governmental-actors

    PRIVATE CENSORSHIP – FIGHTING SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

    Government censorship in the Internet age has been a consistent focal point for free speech advocates. Recent examples of censorship by the American government can be egregious, including the curtailment of First Amendment rights through mass surveillance, overregulation of disfavored speech, criminal prosecution, and outright bans on books, movies, and websites. However, the First Amendment has always provided a potential legal recourse through the judicial system in cases of illegal government censorship. What happens, however, when censorship occurs not at the hands of a government actor, but through the application of policies imposed by powerful, private persons or corporations? What recourse is available in the case of “private censorship”?

    Scout Willis, the daughter of actors Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, recently received substantial press coverage when she walked topless through the streets of New York City in an effort to bring attention to Instagram’s censorship of women’s nipples. Willis used the hashtag #FreetheNipple as part of her Twitter-based protest of Instagram’s policies. The hashtag, as well as an upcoming film of the same name, is the brainchild of filmmaker Lina Esco. The photo-sharing social media website has imposed a policy of censoring not only images that it deems inappropriate, but offensive hashtags as well. For example, Singer Rihanna has been on the receiving end of Instagram’s censorship policies and has had her account suspended for nudity. Instagram later entirely disabled the account, but claimed it was a mistake made by one of their “automated systems.”

    Instagram isn’t the only social network under fire for its censorship policies: Facebook has routinely incensed users with its censorship of not only images of breastfeeding, but political posts and pages, as well.

    The banking and financial sector routinely delivers its own potent dose of “private censorship” as well. In recent months, adult film stars have reported having their bank accounts systematically closed by JP Morgan Chase, for no other reason than their connection with adult entertainment. This flavor of private censorship however, may be more insidious than it first appeared. Imposing censorship through denial of banking services may actually have been motived by the U.S. Department of Justice, which created a leaked program dubbed “Operation Choke Point,” designed to pressure banks into denying service to certain disfavored industries.

    Payment processors PayPal and WePay have also been known to shut down accounts of bloggers involved in the adult entertainment industry. Visa and MasterCard have historically imposed higher standards for adult websites for payment processing as well, including higher-than-normal transaction fees, penalties, and charge-back rates. American Express categorically prohibits its cards to be used for things like adult websites or WikiLeaks donations. Content restrictions imposed on adult websites by merchant banks and processors are well-known to the site operators, although the rules are rarely made public, and can change without notice. Credit card companies are under increasing pressure to become the Internet’s content police, and some have recently given in to pressure to stop processing payments for “mugshot” removal websites.

    Even Google; one of the most vocal crusaders for Internet freedom, appears to have hopped aboard the “private censorship” bandwagon, at least in terms of the parts of the Internet it deems “offensive.” Google has lately made waves for prohibiting adult material on its powerful advertising network; AdWords. Although Google claims the policies are not new, many in the adult industry disagree. There has been much speculation that pressure from conservative groups, especially Morality in Media, caused Google’s sudden crackdown on adult advertisements. Although Google has refused to confirm the connection, this alleged kowtowing to a family values group would be shocking from the search engine giant, which previously claimed it was strongly committed to free expression. Additionally, it has been reported that Google has pushed adult content down in its organic search results, and even allows the first page of results for adult-oriented search terms to be dominated by less relevant, non-adult links.

    These instances of private censorship, and many like them, are not subject to First Amendment protection since they are undertaken at the behest of corporate directors, and not governmental agencies. But the results can often be even more devastating. With no constitutional restrictions to rein them in, giant, multi-billion dollar companies end up making critical decisions on what content the general public can see, read, and hear – especially online. The corporations making these decisions are now more powerful than most countries – at least when it comes to being the gatekeepers of communication. The censorial power wielded by social networking platforms like Twitter and Facebook is readily confirmed by the knee-jerk reaction by governments under national revolt to immediately shut them down, although the effort is not always successful.

    If the government is involved with, or encourages censorship by private parties, such as with Operation Choke Hold, legal remedies may be available under federal civil rights conspiracy laws. However, members of the general public are often confused about where their constitutional First Amendment rights end and where unrestrained “private censorship” begins. Part of this confusion may result from the ability to invoke the First Amendment defenses against defamation claims involving purely private parties. Some “SLAPP suit” statutes, again governing private disputes, are also grounded in First Amendment principles, thus adding to the confusion. However, these are narrow exceptions to the general rule that prevents individuals from relying on First Amendment rights when they are censored by private entities. Powerful online media entities like Google, Facebook and Twitter can, and do, routinely censor speech that they find offensive or which violates their acceptable use polices. Application of these policies may be arbitrary, inconsistent, or even discriminatory. But for now, the actions remain legal and constitutional.
    more

     
  2. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    conclusion

    The good news is that overly-restrictive policies by private entities create opportunities for others who are willing to permit the activity, or take some risk. Notably, when virtual monopolies begin to develop, such as the Visa/MasterCard merchant banking system, Google’s search engine rankings and ad policies, or Facebook/Twitter social networking platforms, dissenters are often left with few alternatives. However, the consumer’s voice still matters. Upstarts like KIK messenger, or Tumblr photo sharing system, are often created to fill the void created by restrictive policies implemented by larger competitors. Even the once invincible merchant banking system is sweating bullets as consumers take to virtual currencies like BitCoin to make purchases that might otherwise be unavailable due to policies imposed by conglomerate financial institutions. The Internet, it seems, remains quite adept at routing around censorship – even the private kind.

    So what’s the public’s answer to the growing problem of private censorship? Many have struggled with this very question, and thus far, no perfect solution has been proposed. Imposing First Amendment restraints on private businesses would be antithetical to America’s capitalist, free-market system, and could lead to greater problems than it solves. With a growing number of companies willing to deviate from the conservative policies of their perhaps larger and more established competitors, consumers have become empowered to choose services that share their views on freedom of expression. Some of those consumers will go on to form their own businesses, mobile applications, websites – even currencies – that serve the online users who were flippantly discarded by their predecessors. For now, the best and likely most effective response to private censorship is to “vote with your dollars, and do business with like-minded online service providers.​
     
  3. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    ib4 anyone jumps on the old "conservative talking points" knee jerk reaction.

    Here are the groups that make up the NCAC:

    Coalition Members[edit]
    These are the coalition members according to the official National Coalition Against Censorship website:

    Actors' Equity Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Association of University Professors, American Association of University Women, American Booksellers for Free Expression, American Civil Liberties Union, American Ethical Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Jewish Committee, American Library Association, American Literary Translators Association, American Orthopsychiatric Association, American Society of Journalists & Authors, Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Catholics for Choice, Children's Literature Association, College Art Association, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, The Creative Coalition, Directors Guild of America, Dramatists Guild of America, Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, Educational Book & Media Association, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Free Speech Coalition, International Literacy Association, Lambda Legal, Modern Language Association, National Center for Science Education, National Communication Association, National Council for the Social Studies, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Teachers of English, National Education Association, National Youth Rights Association, The Newspaper Guild/CWA, PEN America, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Project Censored, SAG-AFTRA, Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S., Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators, Student Press Law Center, Union for Reform Judaism, Union of Democratic Intellectuals, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication, United Methodist Church, United Methodist Communications, Women's American ORT, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Writers Guild of America, East, Writers Guild of America, West.
     
  4. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    46,998
    Likes Received:
    35,593
    I think Parler will save us. Unfortunately they don't check for illegal sex trafficking sourced p*rn so I don't want to incentivize sex trafficking by adding ad revenue to Parler. I'm utlizing market principles.
     
    mdrowe00 and FranchiseBlade like this.
  5. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,504
    Likes Received:
    41,331
    Interestingly enough the NCAC in the material stated that applying First Amendment protections to private business would be problematic. It also stated that the solution already by voting with their dollars. Perhaps I missed the part about doing away with copyrights or that publishers should be publishing stuff because some people ideologically want to compel them to keep on publishing certain content whether they want to or not.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  6. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    more Facebook censorship:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/...rump-for-including-the-voice-of-donald-trump/

    5 hours ago
    He Who Must Not Be Heard: Facebook Removes Interview By Lara Trump For Including The “Voice Of Donald Trump”
    by jonathanturley

    Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders raised concerns over the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter as an attack on free speech by corporate censors. It apparently had no impact on Big Tech. Facebook has removed a video of an interview by Lara Trump of her father-in-law and former president. The company declared that it would censor any content “in the voice of Donald Trump.” It appears that Trump has achieved Voldemort status on social media and is now “he who must not be heard.”

    According to news reports,Trump officials were sent an email from a Facebook employee, warning that any content posted on Facebook and Instagram “in the voice of President Trump is not currently allowed on our platforms (including new posts with President Trump speaking).”

    The otherwise cheerful note started with “Hi folks” and then stated “In line with the block we placed on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed and result in additional limitations on the accounts.”

    The move is an obvious attack on free speech, including political speech.

    Notably, he could be talking about the Yankees but the posting would be censored because the team was discussed in the voice of Donald Trump. It is not his view but Trump himself that is being canceled by the company. However, presumably, Lara Trump could sit next to Trump and have him whisper his views into her ear. She could then give his views in the voice of Lara rather than Donald Trump.

    As we have previously discussed, Democrats have abandoned long-held free speech values in favor of corporate censorship. They clearly has a different “comfort zone” than Sanders. What discomforts many Democratic members is the ability of people to speak freely on these platforms and spread what they view as “disinformation.”

    When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.

    In that hearing, members like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) pressed witnesses like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for assurance that Trump would remain barred from speaking on their platforms: “What are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump’s use of your platforms after he stops being president, will be still be deemed newsworthy and will he still be able to use your platforms to spread misinformation?”

    Rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:

    “Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”

    “Robust content modification” has a certain appeal, like a type of software upgrade. It is not content modification. It is censorship. If our representatives are going to crackdown on free speech, they should admit to being advocates for censorship.

    Now “robust content modification” includes censoring the voice of Donald Trump. It is not just censorship but senseless. These companies are trying to erase a unpopular figures but in doing so they are only deepening the divisions and anger in our country. Yet, the media is largely either supportive or silent in the face of this corporate regulation of political speech.

    The move by Facebook could strengthen calls for changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    Big Tech once fashioned itself as the equivalent of the telephone company, and thus sought protections as neutral suppliers of communication forums allowing people to voluntarily associate and interact. It then started to engage in expanding, conflicting acts of censorship. Yet, it still wants to remain protected as if it were neutral despite actively modifying content. We would never tolerate a telephone company operator cutting into a call to say the company did not approve of a statement that was just made, or cutting the line for those who did not voice approved positions.

    That is why I call myself an “internet originalist.” True neutrality leaves it to individuals to choose who they read, watch or converse with in the media. You leave it up to people to decide whose voices will be heard.
     
  7. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    46,998
    Likes Received:
    35,593
    I'd kick out Laura Trump from my house also.
     
  8. Ziggy

    Ziggy QUEEN ANON

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    36,721
    Likes Received:
    13,113
    More fully grown adults crying about getting their way on social media.
     
  9. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    46,998
    Likes Received:
    35,593
    It's a shame how Clutch is against free speech. So many banned and suspended people that have interacted with this site.

    Boomers learning the concept of forum mods.
     
    Newlin and mdrowe00 like this.
  10. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,069
    Likes Received:
    25,082
    4 years of getting trolled (at best) by Trump's psycho tweets and that infamous red hat was all it took for libs to say "**** it" for free unfettered speech.

    Ofc, our interpretations for "yelling fire in a commons" are still up for discussion.

    Might have to settle that debate before we ponder whether this is a new political normal or there will be a reversion to the mean of supporting free speech.

    You Cons think you can run up the score and think we've all forgotten you went Total War when you had full control of government.

    No one is turning the other cheek anymore. It's OT level gamesmanship until both sides realize we're in this together.
     
  11. Astrodome

    Astrodome Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    10,960
    Likes Received:
    12,180
    You just have to laugh at this point. The left will not tolerate much. The cons had their chance.
     
  12. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    46,998
    Likes Received:
    35,593
    Just like books with gay relationships on summer reading lists.
     
  13. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,069
    Likes Received:
    25,082
    They tolerated Bush's ****up that "real Conservatives" abandoned and took zero responsibility.

    They might've tolerated the Tea Party's fiscal mandate if the Tea Party didn't abandon it.

    I guess it's the point where people don't know whether to laugh or cry at all the lost cred Cons have put themselves.

    You complain the government is The Problem only to double down on The Problem, then pretend to have nothing to do with it.

    Having authority isn't as easy as armchairing.

    Clinton Surplus -> Bush multi trillion deficits -> Obama fiscal cliff -> Trump pre-rona multi trillion deficits -> Biden austerity nao!!

    Yeah right. :rolleyes:
     
    dmoneybangbang likes this.
  14. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,504
    Likes Received:
    41,331
    I don't see this as a matter of "yelling fire in a theater" or a matter of hate speech. I would agree that government shouldn't be censoring speech but this is a matter of how private corporations decide what content they want on their properties or what content they want to publish.

    If we accept the arguments put forward then EMI should give me a record contract and Clutch shouldn't be able to moderate this or any of the other forums. Not for reasons that maybe a lot of people don't want to listen to my music but because a lot of people don't want to listen to my music. Not for reasons that people might get annoyed that some poster might be insulting other posters who don't think that Vasilis Spanoulis was the greatest Rocket ever but because other posters are getting annoyed.
     
  15. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,069
    Likes Received:
    25,082
    I don't think we've debated on this particular issue, but my inherent problems w/ Big Tech gatekeeping are the unparalleled and instantaneous effects of societal disruption plus who gets to decide what the rules are for moderating content.

    The former has always been an issue with technologies with disruptive communication, such as the printing press, radio, and television. All have been suppressed or controlled in some form even if the first Amendment guarantees free speech "over the airwaves" or on paper.

    Digital mediums are largely unregulated as there's a libertarian component to allow technology to grow unencumbered, but this lack of regulation is also a catalyst towards its disruption, much like how Uber drivers are cheaper than taxis because they don't have to pay for fees, licenses, insurance, background checks and other regulated entitlements taxi companies are forced to do.

    The question I'm more interested in outside the initial public/private rhetoric is why is Youtube different than regulating a company that broadcasts over the airwaves, which has stricter rules on its standards and practices? Is it because there's a duality between content producer and consumer? But then it isn't me being regulated, it's Youtube.

    That leads to the latter question on rules making. This question is less cut and dried because of the aforementioned duality of content producer/consumer. How much stake do I have w/ the platform owner? If it's zero because it's free, then there are obvious problems with this as they've taken de facto ownership for "my content".

    If they are the owners of the IP, then they can be held to standards and practices the government has imposed upon companies in other industries or communication platforms.

    I think the government inherently loves censorship, so it falls upon the people to actively challenge and chisel out the grey areas of speech and our digital rights on these tech platforms.

    The First Amendment is not going to spell it out for us. We're still figuring it out even after 2 decades.

    We're going to need our own versions of George Carlins or Pentagon Papers that clarifies the ongoing murky relationship that isn't as cut and dried as pundits portray it to be.
     
  16. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/04/facebook-bans-content-posted-in-voice.html

    excerpt:

    It's possible that Facebook only means to block Trump from directly using another person to bypass the ban, but the phrasing — "content posted in the voice of Donald Trump" — seems to rope in everyone who writes about Trump in a way that passes along his words and ideas. What is "the voice of Donald Trump"?

    If I put up a video of Trump talking, am I posting "in the voice of Donald Trump"? Notice the threat of "additional limitations" on one's account. It's not just Lara Trump who is threatened. It's anyone who's pro-Trump and even anyone who wants to write about what Trump is saying.

    Is it Facebook's agenda to stop Trump family and associates from passing along his video or is it to create an enclave in which Trump does not exist — to render Trump a nonperson?
    more at the link
     
  17. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    46,998
    Likes Received:
    35,593
    I'd personally kick out any person who praises Trump on my property.
     
  18. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,620
    Likes Received:
    18,392
    For years, some on the left and right has been concern about "too big" private institution in all kind of ways, including suppression of speech.

    Imagine a future with AI suppressing speech and everyone uses the same AI service. Amazon AI services.

    We aren't there and might never be. FB, Twitter, Google are all huge and powerful. They are also very fast-moving companies that change fast. So, while they are huge and powerful, the speed of technological advances always puts them at risk. When a company does not have risk, is survivable like the govt, then I think we must be concern about their ability to suppress speech. Before then, we need to watch, but the principle of free market is still what should be in play. Govt crackdown on these companies ONLY BECAUSE of which type of speech they allow is itself a form of speech suppression. That's easily more dangerous at this time than what these companies (including conservative favorite - Parler) choose to do as related to speech.

    Where we are today, as we have witnessed through the Trump presidency and up to now is that Trump Republican support gov suppression on speech (Trump's NDAs, his use of presidential power to pressure private parties and companies) and attacks on free market is the bigger issue than these powerful, but still vulnerable, businesses choice of speech suppression and who they do businesses with.
     
    saitou likes this.
  19. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    "Justice Thomas Wonders When Supreme Court Will Have To Consider Social Media's Private Deplatforming Power":

    https://reason.com/2021/04/05/justi...er-social-medias-private-deplatforming-power/

    Justice Thomas Wonders When Supreme Court Will Have To Consider Social Media's Private Deplatforming Power
    A moot case about Trump blocking tweets leads to concerns that tech companies have too much control over speech.
    SCOTT SHACKFORD | 4.5.2021 12:55 PM

    Justice Clarence Thomas this morning suggested that the Supreme Court is on a collision course with online platforms like Twitter and search engines like Google about how much power companies have to decide who may speak.

    The context was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court to order the dismissal of a lawsuit by the Knight First Amendment Institute against former President Donald Trump over whether Trump was unconstitutionally censoring people when he blocked them from tweeting at him. Now that Trump is no longer the president and has been banned from Twitter, the Supreme Court determined the case to be moot.

    Thomas, concurring with the decision, decided to write separately to raise questions about the power of Twitter to eject Trump from the platform. He noted the oddness of the concept that a public official's Twitter feed might be considered a "government forum" when interacting with the public, but "a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it."

    Thomas, it seems, is raising points similar to those of some conservative politicians. He believes that there may be something wrong, possibly even unconstitutional, if a private online platform can boot people off or delete comments it objects to. He writes:

    Today's digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.

    Thomas raises the question of whether some of these platforms might be considered by the courts to be "common carriers," utilities like phone lines that serve the public interest. If the courts conclude that they are, then it would be legal, and not necessarily a violation of the First Amendment, for the government to put restrictions on the ability to prohibit people from using the platform.

    Thomas also takes note of an argument presented by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA and co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy (hosted here at Reason). In January, Volokh considered whether a federal law can run afoul of the First Amendmentwhen it preempts a state law that grants particular free speech protections against private actions. There's a Supreme Court precedent from 1980, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (Thomas references it in his concurrence), that concluded California had the power to force a shopping mall to allow protesters to engage in advocacy there, even though it was private property.

    This precedent is potentially relevant due to the existence of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which specifies that websites and online platforms have the power to moderate and remove speech they find offensive, even if said speech is protected by the First Amendment. Section 230 is under attack by politicians who want to either force social media platforms to censor content the politicians don't like or, alternatively, force platforms to host content the social media companies themselves don't like.

    Volokh has wondered if the Pruneyard precedent could potentially collide with Section 230 if a state passes a law that essentially starts treating social media platforms as "common carriers" and requires them to host users. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says he wants a law in his state to force social media platforms to host candidates. The law would, on the surface, appear to violate both Section 230 and the First Amendment rights of a platform to control whose speech it wants to host. But Volokh says it may be a little more complicated than that if courts ever embrace the argument that social media platforms, like malls, could be ordered to host certain types of political or activist speech.

    Volokh responded to Thomas' concurrence this morning by suggesting that Thomas isn't necessarily calling for tech platforms to be treated as common carriers, but he is noting that it seems like the Supreme Court is going to eventually have to weigh in on these complexities:

    As I read it, Justice Thomas is not arguing that platforms are already generally common carriers or government actors under existing legal principles; that argument is quite a stretch, and his analysis seems to me to largely reject that argument, except perhaps when the platforms are restricting speech in response to government threats.

    Rather, he is anticipating what might be done through legislation, and whether new state laws that do treat platforms as common carriers (more or less) are going to be seen as blocked by the First Amendment or 47 U.S.C. § 230. (His analysis of the interests involved may also be relevant to whether such state laws violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.) That's an issue the Court will likely have to deal with in coming years.

    It's also worth noting that no other justices signed on to Thomas' concurrence, despite the current court's conservative leanings. If there is an interest among other justices to decide whether online platforms can legally be forced to host content, they're not showing it.​
     
    SuraGotMadHops likes this.
  20. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,175
    Likes Received:
    109,838
    also Volokh comments on Justice Thomas's opinion:

    https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/0...hinking-of-legal-status-of-digital-platforms/

    4 hours ago
    Justice Thomas Suggests Rethinking Legal Status of Digital Platforms
    by Eugene Volokh

    A very interesting opinion by Justice Thomas in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, concurring in the decision to vacate as moot Trump v. Knight First Amendment Institute (the case in which the Second Circuit held that President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking certain users from his Twitter account).

    As I read it, Justice Thomas is not arguing that platforms are already generally common carriers or government actors under existing legal principles; that argument is quite a stretch, and his analysis seems to me to largely reject that argument, except perhaps when the platforms are restricting speech in response to government threats.

    Rather, he is anticipating what might be done through legislation, and whether new state laws that do treat platforms as common carriers (more or less) are going to be seen as blocked by the First Amendment or 47 U.S.C. § 230. (His analysis of the interests involved may also be relevant to whether such state laws violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.) That's an issue the Court will likely have to deal with in coming years.

    I also read Justice Thomas's position here as somewhat tentative, and of course it's far from clear that four other Justices will eventually go along with it. But I think the analysis is interesting and helpful to the debate on the subject. The opening symposium issue of our new faculty-edited Journal of Free Speech Law will be all about this general question; we expect the papers to be out around July, and I suspect Justice Thomas's opinion will be heavily cited. (I'll have my own paper in the journal as well, which will touch on many of these issues; my own views on this are uncertain and tentative as well, but I think some of the arguments that are cited favorably by the opinion are much worth discussing, whatever bottom line one ultimately reaches. I've also blogged briefly on the 230 question, influenced by the work of Vivek Ramaswamy & Jed Rubenfeld.)
    more at the link

     
    Invisible Fan likes this.

Share This Page