Federal appeals court rules tech platforms can censor content

February 28, 2020, 01:59 PM

sig2392

I always said their toy their rules.

I never did like it.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that internet giants like Google and Facebook can censor content on their platforms, rebuking arguments from conservatives who claim the tech companies violate users' First Amendment rights by removing certain messages or videos.

With its unanimous opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest court to dismiss arguments that platforms like YouTube can be sued under the First Amendment for decisions on content moderation.

"Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,” Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, wrote in the opinion.

https://thehill.com/policy/tec...ee-to-censor-content

February 28, 2020, 02:11 PM

LS1 GTO

I'm in agreement but then again, I don't use twatter and like to find justification(s) for my morals and beliefs.

Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

"If dogs don't go to Heaven, I want to go where they go" Will Rogers

The definition of the words we used, carry a meaning of their own...

February 28, 2020, 02:12 PM

Bytes

If they want to be a publisher, which they don't want to be, then they can be sued for liable. If they want to be a public forum, which they appear to want, then they can't be sued. If they're a publisher, then by all means, restrict content. If they're a public forum then there should be no restrictions. Which is it?

February 28, 2020, 02:19 PM

slosig

quote:
Originally posted by Bytes:
If they want to be a publisher, which they don't want to be, then they can be sued for liable. If they want to be a public forum, which they appear to want, then they can't be sued. If they're a publisher, then by all means, restrict content. If they're a public forum then there should be no restrictions. Which is it?

Exactly. They want the protection from liability of “just being a platform”, not responsible for what their users post. And that doesn't seem unreasonable to me if they are “ just a platform”. The problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. That I have a problem with.

February 28, 2020, 02:29 PM

nhtagmember

It was the 9th Circus which means they likely hit it wrong and is likely to be overturned.

February 28, 2020, 02:29 PM

RogueJSK

Like it or not, the Constitution protects your freedom of speech from infringement by the government, not by private citizens or private companies.

February 28, 2020, 02:42 PM

berto

Congress shall make no law not internet platform shall make no rule.

February 28, 2020, 02:46 PM

Balzé Halzé

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Like it or not, the Constitution protects your freedom of speech from infringement by the government, not by private citizens or private companies.

I agree with your position here, but I think the issue here is a bit more complicated than simply saying this is a private company doing what they want on their own property.

February 28, 2020, 02:56 PM

Scurvy

quote:
Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by Bytes:
If they want to be a publisher, which they don't want to be, then they can be sued for liable. If they want to be a public forum, which they appear to want, then they can't be sued. If they're a publisher, then by all means, restrict content. If they're a public forum then there should be no restrictions. Which is it?

Exactly. They want the protection from liability of “just being a platform”, not responsible for what their users post. And that doesn't seem unreasonable to me if they are “ just a platform”. The problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. That I have a problem with.

100% accurate. Platform or publisher, pick one and only one.

February 28, 2020, 03:01 PM

Bytes

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Like it or not, the Constitution protects your freedom of speech from infringement by the government, not by private citizens or private companies.

Then you think that the tech platforms are publishers or a public forum? If they're publishers they should not be immune from libel lawsuits. I wouldn't have a problem with that. If they want to be a public forum then they should be exempt from libel lawsuits and no ability to censor posts. The problem is they want both. It shouldn't work that way. Make them pick one.

February 28, 2020, 03:18 PM

ensigmatic

quote:
Originally posted by Bytes:
If they're a publisher, then by all means, restrict content. If they're a public forum then there should be no restrictions. Which is it?

Why, the best of both worlds, of course: A public forum where they get to decide what is acceptable to be made public.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher

February 28, 2020, 03:27 PM

az4783054

Don't use 'social media' unless you want to read ONLY liberal politically correct dribble.

February 28, 2020, 03:31 PM

smschulz

quote:
Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by Bytes:
If they want to be a publisher, which they don't want to be, then they can be sued for liable. If they want to be a public forum, which they appear to want, then they can't be sued. If they're a publisher, then by all means, restrict content. If they're a public forum then there should be no restrictions. Which is it?

Exactly. They want the protection from liability of “just being a platform”, not responsible for what their users post. And that doesn't seem unreasonable to me if they are “ just a platform”. The problem is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. That I have a problem with.

^^^ this is the exact issue - agreed. They ARE free to discriminate or whatever but they DO NOT deserve any special protection.

February 28, 2020, 03:35 PM

ensigmatic

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
Don't use 'social media' unless you want to read ONLY liberal politically correct dribble.

Nonsense.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with far-flung friends and family, and to connect with a variety of charitable organizations, manufacturers, stores, and even a political group or two.

I see very, very little PC drivel.

February 28, 2020, 03:38 PM

fpuhan

We are on an Internet forum that has rules of behavior and content. We agree to those rules or we don't post on SIGForum. What part of that isn't understood? Google and Fakebook may be larger, but size isn't the issue.

You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you are capable of great violence. If you're not capable of great violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless.

NRA Benefactor/Patriot Member

February 28, 2020, 03:45 PM

az4783054

quote:
Originally posted by ensigmatic:
quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
Don't use 'social media' unless you want to read ONLY liberal politically correct dribble.

Nonsense.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with far-flung friends and family, and to connect with a variety of charitable organizations, manufacturers, stores, and even a political group or two.

I see very, very little PC drivel.

My opinions are no more nor less nonsense than yours.

February 28, 2020, 04:45 PM

ensigmatic

quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
quote:
Originally posted by ensigmatic:
quote:
Originally posted by az4783054:
Don't use 'social media' unless you want to read ONLY liberal politically correct dribble.

Nonsense.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with far-flung friends and family, and to connect with a variety of charitable organizations, manufacturers, stores, and even a political group or two.

I see very, very little PC drivel.

My opinions are no more nor less nonsense than yours.

Well, except for the fact you're demonstrably wrong in this particularly instance, I suppose that may be true