Platform, or Publisher? If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they need to get out of the censorship business. Adam CandeubMark Epstein May 7, 2018
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html quote <<While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.>> Harry On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:56 AM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > AM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech >> > Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot > pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, FOX > News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech as much > as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from a cold > fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can delete any > post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. It is entirely > up to them. The government cannot interfere with their decision because > freedom of speech includes the right to not publish something. They cannot > be forced to publish a statement. > > If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their > business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for Facebook > and their users to decide. The government has no role and their decision to > delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with constitutional free > speech. > > >> 2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html >> <https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html> >> >> > I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their > constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they > do, but I am not keeping track. > >
