• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First Amendment; What's yor take on it?

M

MeThePeople

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
149
Reaction score
16
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So lets hear some opinions on what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century

I feel as written it does the job. Congress ,either Federal or State, cant make a law to tell me what religion, if any, I can exercise and they can't make me observe a national religion to qualify as a citizen
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others
I can tell the elected that I am either happy with their work and to continue or that I am dissatisfied and they need to do what the majority directs them to do or get out.
 
English a secondary language?
 
MeThePeople said:
So lets hear some opinions on what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century

I feel as written it does the job. Congress ,either Federal or State, cant make a law to tell me what religion, if any, I can exercise and they can't make me observe a national religion to qualify as a citizen
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others
I can tell the elected that I am either happy with their work and to continue or that I am dissatisfied and they need to do what the majority directs them to do or get out.
Click to expand...

A very good statement of liberty practiced, and nice to know it was chosen as position #1 for the BOR.
 
I'm going to go a little off-topic, but I promise I'll come right back!

During World War II, the Allies adopted the "Four Freedoms" - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want - as a statement of principles that identified what they were fighting for. These were adopted from FDR's inaugural speech from 1941. The first two may sound familiar. After the war, the new United Nations promulgated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in 1948), which itself evolved into the International Bill of Human Rights. Together, now expanded to 30 articles, they have been the foundation for much of the U.N.'s efforts since, and indeed, a basis for much of international law today.

I deviated from the topic because you asked, "what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century"? What they mean to me is pretty profound. The First Amendment led the way in establishing the principles of "why" we fought our war of independence, and what values Americans cherish in, and expected from, their new government. They have since become the international standard (with some modifications) of what democratic government, and indeed, any government, should strive for on behalf of their citizens. That's kind of a big deal.
 
The First Amendment has a rather interesting history. Originally, it was never intended to be applied to the States, only to the federal government. Yet before the decade was out the federal government would blatantly violate the First Amendment with the Alien & Sedition Act of 1798. At the time the First Amendment was ratified by the States in 1791 many of the States already had their own State-sponsored religion. States were enacting religious laws left and right, but Congress was strictly prohibited under the First Amendment.

The attitudes towards the First Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, has changed over the last 228 years. The biggest change was during the Reconstruction period. Specifically, after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. At that time it was becoming very popular to assume the Bill of Rights applied to the State and local governments, as well as the federal government. This was a big departure from the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Even then, it still would not be until Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925) before the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment and applied it among the States.

It has been a long process, with each freedom listed in the amendment being tested by the courts. For example, it was not until Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940) before the Supreme Court held that States could not impose restrictions based upon religious grounds. And in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) the Supreme Court held that States could not violate our freedom of association under the First Amendment.

There are still First Amendment tests being decided by the Supreme Court, but it has been well established that every protected freedom listed within the First Amendment applies to the State and local governments as much as it applies to the federal government.
 
Glitch said:
The First Amendment has a rather interesting history. Originally, it was never intended to be applied to the States, only to the federal government. Yet before the decade was out the federal government would blatantly violate the First Amendment with the Alien & Sedition Act of 1798. At the time the First Amendment was ratified by the States in 1791 many of the States already had their own State-sponsored religion. States were enacting religious laws left and right, but Congress was strictly prohibited under the First Amendment.

The attitudes towards the First Amendment, and the Bill of Rights in general, has changed over the last 228 years. The biggest change was during the Reconstruction period. Specifically, after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. At that time it was becoming very popular to assume the Bill of Rights applied to the State and local governments, as well as the federal government. This was a big departure from the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Even then, it still would not be until Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925) before the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment and applied it among the States.

It has been a long process, with each freedom listed in the amendment being tested by the courts. For example, it was not until Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940) before the Supreme Court held that States could not impose restrictions based upon religious grounds. And in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958) the Supreme Court held that States could not violate our freedom of association under the First Amendment.

There are still First Amendment tests being decided by the Supreme Court, but it has been well established that every protected freedom listed within the First Amendment applies to the State and local governments as much as it applies to the federal government.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the sedition act also used during WWI to shush members of the US communist party? I also remember quite a few people being thrown in prison due to certain anti-espionage/spy throughout the cold war to once again shush communists.
 
Ryan Longo said:
Wasn't the sedition act also used during WWI to shush members of the US communist party? I also remember quite a few people being thrown in prison due to certain anti-espionage/spy throughout the cold war to once again shush communists.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Sedition Act of 1918 (although that was not the title of the legislation) extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to prohibited anyone using "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" when referring to the US government, the national flag, or the military during times of war. The Postmaster General could also refuse to deliver mail deemed to contain "punishable speech or opinion."

The actual title of the Sedition Act of 1918 is: An Act to amend section three, title one, of the Act entitled "An Act to punish acts of interference with the foreign relations, the neutrality, and the foreign commerce of the United States, to punish espionage, and better to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and for other purposes."

When the Supreme Court upheld the act in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) they were ruling on the Espionage Act of 1917, not the separate piece of legislation introduced a year later that modified the Espionage Act. There were more than 10 times the number of convictions under the Sedition Act of 1918 than there was under the Alien & Sedition Act of 1798. It is also important to make note of who was President at the time and why they were pursuing convictions. The Sedition Act of 1918 remained law until Congress repealed it in March 1921. The Espionage Act of 1917 remains in effect and can be found under Title 18, Chapter 37 of the US Code.

The House Un-American Activities Committee was created in 1938 to investigate NAZI and communist activities in the US. From 1947 until 1951 the House Un-American Activities Committee began investigating the communist influence in Hollywood, which was unconstitutional. Not only did these investigations violate citizens right to free speech, but also their freedom of association under the First Amendment. As a result of these hearings, nearly 300 actors and others employed in the movie industry were blacklisted or prevented from working. This censorship was imposed upon them by the film industry itself, not by government. The government blacklisted no one. Much like Twitter and Facebook do today when they ban someone.
 
Just for completeness sake, the last federal attack against the First Amendment concerned the Internet. It came in the form of the Communication Decency Act of 1996. Which made it a crime for anyone who ...

knowingly (A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.
Click to expand...

In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) the Supreme Court upheld the New York case that found the anti-indecency provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional. However, the anti-obscenity provisions of the law remained in effect until the New York case Nitke v. Gonzalez, 413 F.Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) held it to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the New York court's decision in 2006 without comment.

If history teaches us anything, this will not be the last time the federal government violates the First Amendment.
 
MeThePeople said:
So lets hear some opinions on what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century

I feel as written it does the job. Congress ,either Federal or State, cant make a law to tell me what religion, if any, I can exercise and they can't make me observe a national religion to qualify as a citizen
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others
I can tell the elected that I am either happy with their work and to continue or that I am dissatisfied and they need to do what the majority directs them to do or get out.
Click to expand...

You mentioned responsibility which is an important factor in the exercise of every right. Some people seem to think the Constitution gives them the absolute right to do any thing they want, whenever and wherever they want. Not true. From the beginning the understanding has been the an individual is free to exercise his rights unless they infringe on the rights of another. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are often-cited examples of restrictions on First Amendment Rights. As are threats to the President, inciting riots or insurrections, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

The issue of "hate speech" is complicated. What exactly defines it? And at what level or under what circumstances should it be prohibited. Those of you who know me know I like to espouse Bullseye's Zeroeth Amendment "Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to be shocked, insulted, outraged, embarrassed or ridiculed". Kinda of a spin on the "I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" slogan. .


IMHO we need to hear what the fringe groups are saying (the above restrictions applying, of course). White supremacists, radical socialists , Hillboro Baptist Churchers, etc. Yeah, I KNOW that runs the risk of aiding recruitment but I believe the MORE people that hear the **** they peddle the more resistant society will be to their influences.
 
Bullseye said:
You mentioned responsibility which is an important factor in the exercise of every right. Some people seem to think the Constitution gives them the absolute right to do any thing they want, whenever and wherever they want. Not true. From the beginning the understanding has been the an individual is free to exercise his rights unless they infringe on the rights of another. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are often-cited examples of restrictions on First Amendment Rights. As are threats to the President, inciting riots or insurrections, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

The issue of "hate speech" is complicated. What exactly defines it? And at what level or under what circumstances should it be prohibited. Those of you who know me know I like to espouse Bullseye's Zeroeth Amendment "Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to be shocked, insulted, outraged, embarrassed or ridiculed". Kinda of a spin on the "I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" slogan. .


IMHO we need to hear what the fringe groups are saying (the above restrictions applying, of course). White supremacists, radical socialists , Hillboro Baptist Churchers, etc. Yeah, I KNOW that runs the risk of aiding recruitment but I believe the MORE people that hear the **** they peddle the more resistant society will be to their influences.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you have written here.

The problem lies with today's technology. While any given fringe group may be extremely tiny in comparison to society at large or even to a 'mainstream' subgroup within society, today's technology allows them to appear bigger and louder than they actually are.

For example, scientists who dispute the phenomena known as 'climate change' is an extreme minority in the scientific community, but because others with a political agenda echo this minority over and over, it appears to many that there is a scientific difference of opinion when there actually isn't.

People with large audiences (numbering in the millions) have been known to promote violent behavior in the hope of reaching that one unhinged individual who will act. When he does, the originator of the idea denies any responsibility for the consequences, citing their 1st amendment rights. This, I believe needs to be addressed somehow. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a day when every radical or irresponsible pundit would have an unfettered access to a microphone, Twitter account or Facebook page.

I don't know the answer. But I do know that a lot of people have been and will continue to be hurt because of our inability to effectively address issues that have arisen as a result of technology outstripping our laws.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
I agree with much of what you have written here.

The problem lies with today's technology. While any given fringe group may be extremely tiny in comparison to society at large or even to a 'mainstream' subgroup within society, today's technology allows them to appear bigger and louder than they actually are.

For example, scientists who dispute the phenomena known as 'climate change' is an extreme minority in the scientific community, but because others with a political agenda echo this minority over and over, it appears to many that there is a scientific difference of opinion when there actually isn't.

People with large audiences (numbering in the millions) have been known to promote violent behavior in the hope of reaching that one unhinged individual who will act. When he does, the originator of the idea denies any responsibility for the consequences, citing their 1st amendment rights. This, I believe needs to be addressed somehow. The Founding Fathers never envisioned a day when every radical or irresponsible pundit would have an unfettered access to a microphone, Twitter account or Facebook page.

I don't know the answer. But I do know that a lot of people have been and will continue to be hurt because of our inability to effectively address issues that have arisen as a result of technology outstripping our laws.
Click to expand...
You make good points, but I would argue that person broadcasting to millions with the hope of finding one person with whom he resonates may also be working towards the good of society. Not every one "living in the wilderness" is evil or dangerous. Nor does mass agreement equal eternal and everlasting truth.
 
Bullseye said:
You mentioned responsibility which is an important factor in the exercise of every right. Some people seem to think the Constitution gives them the absolute right to do any thing they want, whenever and wherever they want. Not true. From the beginning the understanding has been the an individual is free to exercise his rights unless they infringe on the rights of another. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are often-cited examples of restrictions on First Amendment Rights. As are threats to the President, inciting riots or insurrections, or advocating the overthrow of the government.

The issue of "hate speech" is complicated. What exactly defines it? And at what level or under what circumstances should it be prohibited. Those of you who know me know I like to espouse Bullseye's Zeroeth Amendment "Congress shall make no law infringing on the people's right to be shocked, insulted, outraged, embarrassed or ridiculed". Kinda of a spin on the "I may hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" slogan. .


IMHO we need to hear what the fringe groups are saying (the above restrictions applying, of course). White supremacists, radical socialists , Hillboro Baptist Churchers, etc. Yeah, I KNOW that runs the risk of aiding recruitment but I believe the MORE people that hear the **** they peddle the more resistant society will be to their influences.
Click to expand...

In addition, I would advise others to be wary of falling into the mentality of 'well, we all agree that this particular group is dangerous' simply because once it becomes okay to censor, de-platform, or even prosecute speech from legit hate-groups, the 'they're too dangerous' reasoning can then be more broadly applied to groups and speech that are, in fact, not dangerous at all. I would err on the side of allowing potentially dangerous speech for that reason alone.

I'm fairly certain that you meant 'Westboro' instead of 'Hillboro', unless there's a new one that I don't know about.
 
MeThePeople said:
So lets hear some opinions on what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century

I feel as written it does the job. Congress ,either Federal or State, cant make a law to tell me what religion, if any, I can exercise and they can't make me observe a national religion to qualify as a citizen
I can speak my opinions responsibly and do so alone or as a peaceful demonstrator on any publicly owned property or my own
I can print what I have to say and display it or distibute it to others
I can tell the elected that I am either happy with their work and to continue or that I am dissatisfied and they need to do what the majority directs them to do or get out.
Click to expand...

Not if you intend to use FB, Instagram or Youtube to do so - unless they decide to let you.
 
DH Kirkwood said:
In addition, I would advise others to be wary of falling into the mentality of 'well, we all agree that this particular group is dangerous' simply because once it becomes okay to censor, de-platform, or even prosecute speech from legit hate-groups, the 'they're too dangerous' reasoning can then be more broadly applied to groups and speech that are, in fact, not dangerous at all. I would err on the side of allowing potentially dangerous speech for that reason alone.
Click to expand...

I agree with this line of reasoning. But I think there is a fine line between censorship and de-platforming. I think the government should never engage in this type of censorship, but I'm not so sure that non-government groups shouldn't have that right as part of their own freedom of speech. I think facebook is allowed to de-platform those whose speech it doesn't want to be associated with. Similarly, I think schools have a right to deny a platform to those whose messages they perceive as particularly offensive or dangerous. Protest groups have a right to drown out messages they disagree with.

Freedom of Speech should definitely be freedom from criminal prosecution based solely on speech. Beyond that, non-criminal means of suppressing messages that the majority prefer not to amplify are well within the bounds of the majority's own freedom of speech. You have a right to speak your mind, but not necessarily a right to be listened to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not if you intend to use FB, Instagram or Youtube to do so - unless they decide to let you.
Click to expand...

That is because they are private, and the First Amendment only restricts government. The private sector is not required to protect your right to say anything. They can censor anything they please, for any reason they please.
 
lwf said:
I agree with this line of reasoning. But I think there is a fine line between censorship and de-platforming. I think the government should never engage in this type of censorship, but I'm not so sure that non-government groups shouldn't have that right as part of their own freedom of speech. I think facebook is allowed to de-platform those whose speech it doesn't want to be associated with. Similarly, I think schools have a right to deny a platform to those whose messages they perceive as particularly offensive or dangerous. Protest groups have a right to drown out messages they disagree with.

Freedom of Speech should definitely be freedom from criminal prosecution based solely on speech. Beyond that, non-criminal means of suppressing messages that the majority prefer not to amplify are well within the bounds of the majority's own freedom of speech. You have a right to speak your mind, but not necessarily a right to be listened to.
Click to expand...

Private schools can discriminate based upon association, if they choose, but a public school may not. The Bill of Rights protects our rights against government infringement, not infringement by the private sector. In the private sector it is the free market that typically takes care of those who infringe on enough people's rights. If there are enough people offended by Facebook's, Twitter's, or Google's actions that they stop using their services, then eventually those services will fail or be forced to morph into something with more socially acceptable behavior.

As long as the speech, or written word, is not used to incite an armed insurrection, incite violence, or used to slander or libel anyone, then everyone should be able to say whatever they please. Which is why there can never be anything called "hate speech." Labeling anything "hate speech" is just another form of censorship.
 
Glitch said:
That is because they are private, and the First Amendment only restricts government. The private sector is not required to protect your right to say anything. They can censor anything they please, for any reason they please.
Click to expand...

I understand that point of view completely, yet if internet search engines (in addition to "social media" sites) and possibly even ISPs did the same thing (enforce censorship) then the internet becomes as (basically) useless as placing a sign in your yard. If one (political) point of view is given 'private' preference on the internet it then becomes very difficult (if not impossible) for opposing (political) points of view to be effectively presented.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I understand that point of view completely, yet if internet search engines (in addition to "social media" sites) and possibly even ISPs did the same thing (enforce censorship) then the internet becomes as (basically) useless as placing a sign in your yard. If one (political) point of view is given 'private' preference on the internet it then becomes very difficult (if not impossible) for opposing (political) points of view to be effectively presented.
Click to expand...

Before the WWW protocol was created in 1991 there was only the Gopher search engine. Since 1991 there have been a plethora of search engines. One of the more popular ones, before Google and Yahoo, was Alta Vista. Currently I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. So there are lots of different choices available these days. It may be inconvenient for a little while, but corrections in a free market always happen eventually. A good example of that happening is Fox News. Had CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC not try to illegally influence the 1992 General Election, Fox News would never had been created in 1996. Fox News is a direct result of the free market making a correction to the leftist bias in the other mainstream media sources. If that leftist bias were ever to stop with CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, then the reason for Fox News' existence would cease to be, and they would begin to fail. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
 
Glitch said:
Before the WWW protocol was created in 1991 there was only the Gopher search engine. Since 1991 there have been a plethora of search engines. One of the more popular ones, before Google and Yahoo, was Alta Vista. Currently I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. So there are lots of different choices available these days. It may be inconvenient for a little while, but corrections in a free market always happen eventually. A good example of that happening is Fox News. Had CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC not try to illegally influence the 1992 General Election, Fox News would never had been created in 1996. Fox News is a direct result of the free market making a correction to the leftist bias in the other mainstream media sources. If that leftist bias were ever to stop with CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC, then the reason for Fox News' existence would cease to be, and they would begin to fail. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but could they happen (capture enough market share) in time for the 2020 election cycle? The trick is to pick on a minority - little (minimal?) damage to the customer base in exchange for loads of political influence on the majority of customers who do not elect to switch.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Maybe, but could they happen (capture enough market share) in time for the 2020 election cycle? The trick is to pick on a minority - little (minimal?) damage to the customer base in exchange for loads of political influence on the majority of customers who do not elect to switch.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Market forces don't usually work that fast unless it is something particularly egregious. The 2016 election was pretty much a catalyst for people leaving Facebook, Twitter, and Google. People are finding other alternatives, but Facebook, Twitter, and Google will always have a base, a core group of people are satisfied with the services being provided, regardless of the cost to their rights. Just like people today think nothing about allowing the federal government to violate their Fourth Amendment rights every time they board a plane.
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm going to go a little off-topic, but I promise I'll come right back!

During World War II, the Allies adopted the "Four Freedoms" - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want - as a statement of principles that identified what they were fighting for. These were adopted from FDR's inaugural speech from 1941. The first two may sound familiar. After the war, the new United Nations promulgated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in 1948), which itself evolved into the International Bill of Human Rights. Together, now expanded to 30 articles, they have been the foundation for much of the U.N.'s efforts since, and indeed, a basis for much of international law today.

I deviated from the topic because you asked, "what the words mean to Americans in the 21st century"? What they mean to me is pretty profound. The First Amendment led the way in establishing the principles of "why" we fought our war of independence, and what values Americans cherish in, and expected from, their new government. They have since become the international standard (with some modifications) of what democratic government, and indeed, any government, should strive for on behalf of their citizens. That's kind of a big deal.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on the second part. Modern democracy is informed by the Magna Carta, which is of Britain. They then colonized the world under this principle, a tactic which the USA later took up when it started its own colonies, such as the Philippines. This idea that we won over the world because our ideology was irrefutable is a much smaller part than the fact that we spread our ideology through military and economic interventions.

The result is the same though.
 
Northern Light said:
I have to disagree with you on the second part. Modern democracy is informed by the Magna Carta, which is of Britain. They then colonized the world under this principle, a tactic which the USA later took up when it started its own colonies, such as the Philippines. This idea that we won over the world because our ideology was irrefutable is a much smaller part than the fact that we spread our ideology through military and economic interventions.

The result is the same though.
Click to expand...


My history is a bit fuzzy, but the peoples that Britain colonized weren’t offered the same freedoms, were they?
 
Northern Light said:
I have to disagree with you on the second part. Modern democracy is informed by the Magna Carta, which is of Britain. They then colonized the world under this principle, a tactic which the USA later took up when it started its own colonies, such as the Philippines. This idea that we won over the world because our ideology was irrefutable is a much smaller part than the fact that we spread our ideology through military and economic interventions.

The result is the same though.
Click to expand...
It is also untrue that our constitutionally protected rights, much less the First Amendment, has become the international standard. For 228 years the US remains unique among nations in that it protects the freedoms of religious belief, speech, the press, association, and to peacefully protest.

The Philippines became a US territory, along with Guam, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, after the US defeated Spain in 1900. All the colonies that had belonged to Spain, now became US territories. Cuba was granted their independence immediately in 1900, but the US fought a very nasty 40-year long guerrilla war in the jungles of the Philippines before granting their independence. Naturally the US still retains the other two former-Spanish colonies. Which is why they are required to abide by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
lwf said:
I agree with this line of reasoning. But I think there is a fine line between censorship and de-platforming. I think the government should never engage in this type of censorship, but I'm not so sure that non-government groups shouldn't have that right as part of their own freedom of speech. I think facebook is allowed to de-platform those whose speech it doesn't want to be associated with. Similarly, I think schools have a right to deny a platform to those whose messages they perceive as particularly offensive or dangerous. Protest groups have a right to drown out messages they disagree with.

Freedom of Speech should definitely be freedom from criminal prosecution based solely on speech. Beyond that, non-criminal means of suppressing messages that the majority prefer not to amplify are well within the bounds of the majority's own freedom of speech. You have a right to speak your mind, but not necessarily a right to be listened to.
Click to expand...

My problem with large social media platforms like FB de-platforming anyone is the simple fact that they have a near-monopoly on this sort of thing. There are a handful of social media outlets like Twitter that are comparable in size, and I don't think YouTube has any competition at all. If there were thousands, or even hundreds of competing FaceBook-like entities, then I would have no problem with FB exercising their right to deny service, and I certainly don't think the first amendment applies to Mark Zuckerberg in the same manner that it applies to the government.

Long-story-short, FB is legally allowed to de-platform anyone they want. but I don't think that doing so is actually a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom