Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nor do corporations have right to contro
Another important fact to note: That government accounts become limited public forums does not restrict Twitter's rights to moderate users in any way - the only restrictions are upon the accounts' government employee operators.
Re: The First Amendment is to guarantee free and open Public For
In the real world:
At no time was Net Neutrality, even a little bit, related to the fiction of "large corporations wouldn't be charged for using everyone else's bandwidth."
"Only being paid once for providing service once instead of triple-dipping" =/= "giving service for free"
The PragerUwU sham lawsuit failed to dupe the court into falling for the "Marsh V Alabamama applies to internet platforms" lie.
PragerU’s claim that YouTube censored PragerU’s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech. See Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1928 (the Free Speech Clause “prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,” and “does not prohibit private abridgment of speech”); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state”). PragerU does not dispute that YouTube is a private entity that operates its platform without any state involvement.
These are not antiquated principles that have lost their vitality in the digital age. In Halleck the Supreme Court considered whether a private entity that operates a public access channel on a cable system is a state actor. 139 S. Ct. at 1926. The plaintiffs tested a theory that resembled PragerU’s approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its “operation” of the private property as “a public forum for speech.” Id. at 1930. The Court rejected this argument. Such a rule would eviscerate the state action doctrine’s distinction between government and private entities because “all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints.” Id. at 1930–31. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” Id. at 1930.
Importantly, private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972). YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is “not transformed” into a state actor solely by “provid[ing] a forum for speech.” Halleck, 129 S. Ct. at 1930, 1934.
The relevant function performed by YouTube—hosting speech on a private platform—is hardly “an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed.” Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1930. Private parties like “[g]rocery stores” and “[c]omedy clubs” have “open[ed] their property for speech.” Id. YouTube does not perform a public function by inviting public discourse on its property. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” Lloyd Corp., 407 U.S. at 569. Otherwise “every retail and service establishment in the country” would be bound by constitutional norms. Cent. Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 547 (1972) (private parking lots do not become state actors just because they are open to the public).
That YouTube is ubiquitous does not alter our public function analysis. PragerU argues that the pervasiveness of YouTube binds it to the First Amendment because Marsh teaches that “[t]he 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 … constitutional rights of those who use it.” 326 U.S. at 506. PragerU’s reliance on Marsh is not persuasive. In Marsh, the Court held that a private entity operating a company town is a state actor and must abide by the First Amendment. Id. at 505–08. But in Lloyd Corp. and Hudgens, the Court unequivocally confined Marsh’s holding to the unique and rare context of “company town[s]” and other situations where the private actor “perform[s] the full spectrum of municipal powers.”...
YouTube does not fit the bill. Unlike the company town in Marsh, YouTube merely operates a platform for user-generated video content; it does not “perform[] all the necessary municipal functions,” Flagg Bros., 436 U.S. at 159, nor does it operate a digital business district that has “all the characteristics of any other American town,”
Shifting gears slightly, PragerU posits that a private entity can be converted into a public forum if its property is opened up for public discourse. This theory finds no support in our precedent. As the Supreme Court has explained, to create a public forum, the government must intentionally open up the property to public discourse.... That YouTube is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the government undermines PragerU’s public forum theory
PragerU’s attempt to foist a “public forum” label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum also fails. YouTube’s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a “neutral public fora,” cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum. Whether a property is a public forum is not a matter of election by a private entity. We decline to subscribe to PragerU’s novel opt-in theory of the First Amendment.
Tl;Dr:
You're 100% full of shit, AC, same as every other anti-230 troll.
On the post: The GOP's Blisteringly Hypocritical Road From Whining About Net Neutrality To Supporting Trump's Idiotic Attack On Social Media
Re: Re: Bad Policy
One "link" between CDA 230 and NN, is that nobody has ever attacked either without deliberately lying to do so, as Koby demonstrates.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re: Re: Re: Twitter and Facebook are not moderating when REMOVE
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Court Says Trump Appointee Had No Authority To Fire Open Technology Fund Board; Says They Remain In Place
Re: Rule by Judges
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nor do corporations have right to contro
Another important fact to note: That government accounts become limited public forums does not restrict Twitter's rights to moderate users in any way - the only restrictions are upon the accounts' government employee operators.
On the post: Another Anti-Section 230 Bill? Sure, Why Not?
Re:
At least you admit you have no semse.
On the post: Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nor do corporations have right to control th
If you were literate, you would have realized your quote just debunked your false narrative.
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
Re: Re:
You do realize that spamming that debunked bullshit you've obviously never even read like that makes you look pretty stupid, right?
On the post: Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Nor do corporations have right to control the speech
If younwere literate, you would have known "Twitter is a public forum" is 100% the opposite of how courts have actually ruled.
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re: Greenwald actually get's it
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Ted Cruz Once Insisted That Net Neutrality Was The Gov't Takeover Of The Internet; Now Demands That Twitter Host All Nonsense
Re: The First Amendment is to guarantee free and open Public For
In the real world:
At no time was Net Neutrality, even a little bit, related to the fiction of "large corporations wouldn't be charged for using everyone else's bandwidth."
"Only being paid once for providing service once instead of triple-dipping" =/= "giving service for free"
On the post: Ted Cruz Once Insisted That Net Neutrality Was The Gov't Takeover Of The Internet; Now Demands That Twitter Host All Nonsense
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
Re: Etch a Sketch
Do you ever get tired of talking to the moron you see in your mirror?
On the post: Facebook & Twitter Try To Limit The Spread Of Sketchy NY Post Story; Leading To Ridiculous Trumpist Meltdown
New Nork Post: "Hey, Twitter and Facebook, will you tell everyone you can about the latest scam we're trying to pull for us, okay?"
Twitter: "No, do it yourself."
Shit-for-brains sheep: "OMG censorship!!!1!Q!"
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
New Nork Post: "Hey, Twitter and Facebook, will you tell everyone you can about the latest scam we're trying to pull for us, okay?"
Twitter: "No, do it yourself."
Shit-for-brains sheep: "OMG censorship!!!1!Q!"
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
Re: Re:
Tell your handler he needs to be faster with your talking points.
That one was already debunked before you posted it.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Handling Off Platform Harassment On Platform (June 2020)
Re: Leftists then go on to state it's GOOD to stop the spread
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
Re: Re:
Wow, we've finally dug up someone who somehow understands the word "telecommunications" even less than Ajit Pai.
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
Re: Re:
The PragerUwU sham lawsuit failed to dupe the court into falling for the "Marsh V Alabamama applies to internet platforms" lie.
Tl;Dr:
You're 100% full of shit, AC, same as every other anti-230 troll.
On the post: An Update On The Pretty Crummy Supreme Court Term So Far On Issues We Care About
Re: Re: "their own implementation of the AWS S3 APIs"
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
On the post: Twitter Attempts To Add A Bit Of Friction In Run Up To The Election
Re: Re: THEN YES, A. Stephen Stone, it's censorship, by your own
Why link zerohedge instead of anywhere fact-based?
Next >>