1. Private social media organizations should not be forced to provide a platform for views they don't agree with; and
2. Private social media organizations are de facto public utilities and as such they should be required to be disinterested as to content.
Both viewpoints have their merits, but one would think that the American Civil Liberties Union would be promoting the second viewpoint, rather than the first.
Private social media are not public utilities (they have no government sanction or territory).
The ACLU is saying (it's right there in the article) that restricting their ability to choose what to host on their platform is an infringement on the private companies' first amendment speech rights.
Yes. The question is: Why in this case is the ACLU more concerned with the first amendment rights of billion-dollar corporations than those of individual Americans? I think it is because the ACLU has taken a hard left turn in recent years. The ACLU that defended marchers in Skokie in the spirit of "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it" has become an enforcement arm of the progressive left.
> Yes. The question is: Why in this case is the ACLU more concerned with the first amendment rights of billion-dollar corporations more than those of individual Americans?
Because only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations are being infringed upon by the state in the case before SCOTUS.
By contrast, the "individual American" here isn't being infringed upon by the state.
If the state sent the law enforcement to arrest someone exercising their free speech (in a way that doesn't cause harm to people - threatening people and worse acts don't count as free speech), that would be First Amendment infringement. Even then, there are limits - i.e. gag orders in court cases.
> The ACLU that defended marchers in Skokie in the spirit of "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it"
They still support Nazis' right to speak their beliefs, but they don't have a right to use another private entity's bullhorn to do it.
> Justice Elena Kagan seems skeptical of Clement’s argument that the fact the laws regulate only larger social media platforms is a First Amendment violation. Clement insists that under Supreme Court precedent, discriminating based on size is such a violation.
This gets into the Bill of Attainer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_State... ) where laws are written to impact specific individuals or companies and depriving them of rights or property without due process or through legislation.
453 (g) "Social media platform" means any information service,
454 system, Internet search engine, or access software provider
455 that:
456 1. Provides or enables computer access by multiple users to
457 a computer server, including an Internet platform or a social
458 media site;
459 2. Operates as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited
460 liability company, corporation, association, or other legal
461 entity;
462 3. Does business in the state; and
463 4. Satisfies at least one of the following thresholds:
464 a. Has annual gross revenues in excess of $100 million, as
465 adjusted in January of each odd-numbered year to reflect any
466 increase in the Consumer Price Index.
467 b. Has at least 100 million monthly individual platform
468 participants globally.
469
470 The term does not include any information service, system,
471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by
472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment
473 complex as defined in s. 509.013.
Why not 100,000 monthly average users? Or gross revenue of $1 million?
If YouTube comments are part of this, would Amazon reviews be too? Consider also if this law would this prohibit Amazon from removing the reviews of someone who posts "MAGA Sucks" on every listing of a red hat?
Clearly, the solution to the Florida law is to classify the Googleplex as a theme park.
No, it's because the First Amendment rights of billion dollar corporations are the First Amendment rights of the press, religious organizations, and individual Americans. Don't let your hatred of corporations or the left blind you to the fact that it's the same right regardless of who exercises it.
And "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't imply that I must allow you a platform. Much less that the government must force me, under threat of violence, to allow you a platform. Implicit to the right to accept speech is the right to reject speech. Compelled speech is not free speech.
Of course it would imply that people have any platform to express themselves. That is clearly in the spirit of the statement.
Sure, not necessarily yours, what is the topic in this case. But honesty would demand to admit that this is also not what is the issue between different positions.
A hard "left" turn for that matter, because "left" today is what corporations could sell to the most naive people that wanted to feel better about themselves while being "on the right side of history".
I am not from the US, but it seems the ACLU is a complete different organization now. My opinion is that it takes a much worse direction, even failing its original purpose.
9 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] thread1. Private social media organizations should not be forced to provide a platform for views they don't agree with; and
2. Private social media organizations are de facto public utilities and as such they should be required to be disinterested as to content.
Both viewpoints have their merits, but one would think that the American Civil Liberties Union would be promoting the second viewpoint, rather than the first.
The ACLU is saying (it's right there in the article) that restricting their ability to choose what to host on their platform is an infringement on the private companies' first amendment speech rights.
Because only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations are being infringed upon by the state in the case before SCOTUS.
By contrast, the "individual American" here isn't being infringed upon by the state.
If the state sent the law enforcement to arrest someone exercising their free speech (in a way that doesn't cause harm to people - threatening people and worse acts don't count as free speech), that would be First Amendment infringement. Even then, there are limits - i.e. gag orders in court cases.
> The ACLU that defended marchers in Skokie in the spirit of "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it"
They still support Nazis' right to speak their beliefs, but they don't have a right to use another private entity's bullhorn to do it.
Also note the "only the First Amendment rights of the billion-dollar corporations" which gets into a part that is likely overlooked.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arg... (full unlocked article if that link doesn't work https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arg... )
> Justice Elena Kagan seems skeptical of Clement’s argument that the fact the laws regulate only larger social media platforms is a First Amendment violation. Clement insists that under Supreme Court precedent, discriminating based on size is such a violation.
This gets into the Bill of Attainer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_State... ) where laws are written to impact specific individuals or companies and depriving them of rights or property without due process or through legislation.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_...Why not 100,000 monthly average users? Or gross revenue of $1 million?
If YouTube comments are part of this, would Amazon reviews be too? Consider also if this law would this prohibit Amazon from removing the reviews of someone who posts "MAGA Sucks" on every listing of a red hat?
Clearly, the solution to the Florida law is to classify the Googleplex as a theme park.
And "I disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't imply that I must allow you a platform. Much less that the government must force me, under threat of violence, to allow you a platform. Implicit to the right to accept speech is the right to reject speech. Compelled speech is not free speech.
Sure, not necessarily yours, what is the topic in this case. But honesty would demand to admit that this is also not what is the issue between different positions.
I am not from the US, but it seems the ACLU is a complete different organization now. My opinion is that it takes a much worse direction, even failing its original purpose.