Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
^^^ Silicon Valley is notoriously libertarian, not liberal.
Can’t agree. It’s solidly Democratic and associated with every right on cause that is on trend at the time, be it transgender bathrooms, Black Lives Matter, refugee / migrant rights , environmental campaigns etc. Maybe libertarian to the extent that they want legal weed but that’s the extent of it.
On last evening's PBS Newshour they interviewed the dean of the University of Missouri Law School. Here's a link to the segment:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-kicking-alex-jones-off-social-media-is-not-legally-censorship
The main takeaway was that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects speech from interference by the Government, period. Private companies are not bound by it to allow any speech they don't approve of. So, while Alex Jones' feelings may be hurt, his First Amendment rights are not being infringed (at least not from a legal standpoint).
The same reasoning applies to claims of "Censorship." Again, the legal definition of censorship is suppression of speech by the Government. Whatever Facebook et. al. are doing, it doesn't meet the legal definition of censorship.
All that being said, I'm uneasy with the idea of any social media platform taking it upon itself to silence a particular point of view. I think it might be argued that if social media meets the definition of a public utility, they have a duty to allow all points of view. I figure, let demagogues like Jones babble on. The more they talk, the more obvious it becomes that they are unhinged. And, sooner or later, they are likely to step on a legal land mine.
As one of my teachers once told me, "The surest way to destroy a scoundrel is to let him talk and quote him accurately."
Yes, the First Amendment of course relates to Government not private companies.
But, given the changed nature of discourse and the disproportionate influence a handful of media / tech companies have on information, there is an argument that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are now effectively the public square and so should not censor opinion expressed within that public square. This is the key argument for these companies to be regulated as though they were public utilities.