What is the difference between an outside entity asking for information to be removed and the CEO of the company asking for information to be removed? It is a violation, this comment is only plausible under the section 230 protections granted to internet companies allowing them to not be considered publishers but instead as hosts for content. So the government allowed these internet companies to remove what they wanted when they wanted for whatever reason that they wanted making it the perfect vessel to "legally" (it isn't) sensor speech online. The whole thing is unconstitutional and elon trying to use that stinks to high heaven.
Bingo, it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution. This is going to get some kind of fun I feel. So many layers of corruption. As if they were not already in hot water for violating their oaths.
it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution
It is not possible for corporations to violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about what corporations (or any non-government entity) may or may not do.
What is important is that the government can't USE corporations to violate the constitution, but it must also ALLOW corporations to do the same things on their own.
It is not possible for corporations to violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about what corporations (or any non-government entity) may or may not do.
Excuse me? Corporations are not people and are beholden to the government and all Laws that the government is beholden to. Unless you want to argue that Twitter is a person in which case they would also be beholden to not infringing on the rights of others. I do not see a win for this. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A) The people should not be forced to pay for subsidies through tax benefits and grants, which Twitter has received, because then the government has stuck their fingers into it
B) The government CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BY PROXY.
It was laid out by him spamming that the Truth will regain confidence. Baiting. I hate it. Good things are happening, not gonna lie but I have seen some shady business so gotta stay on the toes.
The difference is not if it's an outside entity or internal. The difference is if the outside entity is the government. The reason for this difference is that the government is legally bound by different rules, particularly the first amendment.
Morally speaking there isn't much difference.
Regarding section 230, I agree. If these companies censor information to this degree, then they should be considered publishers and thus held legally responsible for any illegal content that gets posted on their site.
The way section 230 should work is the website has no terms of service as to what can and cannot be posted. You can post whatever you want. And the onus to remove illegal content goes on law enforcement. Why would it be the platform's job to remove illegal content? That's law enforcement's job. And law enforcement has actual oversight, even if that oversight may have some flaws, and are bound by the constitution. Some oversight is better than the current zero oversight that the companies themselves have.
I like your suggestion for 230. It bothered me early on to have to report it to the host who would have to already know about it, I got blocked for stupid opinions within moments of posting them. You can then try the FBI but their site is not user friendly and didn't allow for an easy way to alert them anonymously, local law didn't care about local things so I wasn't going to bother with them...
The thing is that I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor and the consensus seems to be that Corporations can and that simply cannot be true. That would mean that Corporations are allowed to do as they please unchecked by anything and that would mean that the government isn't upholding it's obligation to the people and that makes me big sad....
I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor
I disagree. The constitution, legally speaking, only applies to the government(s). It does not apply directly to you. There may be other laws you are violating, which are applicable to you, if you do something that happens to violate your neighbor's constitutional rights, but the violation is not because you're violating their constitutional rights. There are instances where you can violate their constitutional rights just the same as a corporation can.
For example, if your neighbor enters your property and says something derogatory about your girlfriend. You are legally allowed to kick them out of your property and, if they don't oblige, have them trespassed. If the government did the same thing (i.e. if a person walked into a public park and said something derogatory about the government, so the government had them trespassed), that would be illegal.
The same goes for Twitter.
It's not about violating the Constitution. It's about them doing something that is morally wrong, and should be illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be directly illegal, as that is potentially a violation of the company's rights to do what they want with their property. This is why the section 230 solution is so great. It doesn't make censorship directly illegal, but it means the company is liable for illegal content posted if they choose to censor.
And it makes sense in the spirit of the law. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that if something is posted on Facebook without a fact check banner or being removed, and is a particularly "spicy" take where you'd expect Facebook to have fact checked or removed it, that Facebook had tried to fact check it and came up empty, so it stayed. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that a spicy post on Facebook that doesn't have a fact check banner is verified by Facebook. That's how prominently they censor. So they should be held partially liable if something is, for example, libelous.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
In the spirit of the law a corporation is a person and they do not get any more rights than I do as a person. I am not allowed to silence my neighbor.... If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse. That person might be removed for a time even. Why is that any different for a corporation? Why is it everywhere I look everyone but the common man has all these extra privileges that I am not afforded? The Law was written for the common man, so that he might stay himself in a world that was all about incorporation and conformity.
What is the difference between an outside entity asking for information to be removed and the CEO of the company asking for information to be removed? It is a violation, this comment is only plausible under the section 230 protections granted to internet companies allowing them to not be considered publishers but instead as hosts for content. So the government allowed these internet companies to remove what they wanted when they wanted for whatever reason that they wanted making it the perfect vessel to "legally" (it isn't) sensor speech online. The whole thing is unconstitutional and elon trying to use that stinks to high heaven.
The government cannot violate the Constitution by proxy.
Bingo, it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution. This is going to get some kind of fun I feel. So many layers of corruption. As if they were not already in hot water for violating their oaths.
It is not possible for corporations to violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about what corporations (or any non-government entity) may or may not do.
What is important is that the government can't USE corporations to violate the constitution, but it must also ALLOW corporations to do the same things on their own.
Excuse me? Corporations are not people and are beholden to the government and all Laws that the government is beholden to. Unless you want to argue that Twitter is a person in which case they would also be beholden to not infringing on the rights of others. I do not see a win for this. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
A) The people should not be forced to pay for subsidies through tax benefits and grants, which Twitter has received, because then the government has stuck their fingers into it
B) The government CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BY PROXY.
Can I as a person censor your speech or hinder your speech?
14th about to come in clutch!
if they are protected then why block free speech.
It was laid out by him spamming that the Truth will regain confidence. Baiting. I hate it. Good things are happening, not gonna lie but I have seen some shady business so gotta stay on the toes.
The difference is not if it's an outside entity or internal. The difference is if the outside entity is the government. The reason for this difference is that the government is legally bound by different rules, particularly the first amendment.
Morally speaking there isn't much difference.
Regarding section 230, I agree. If these companies censor information to this degree, then they should be considered publishers and thus held legally responsible for any illegal content that gets posted on their site.
The way section 230 should work is the website has no terms of service as to what can and cannot be posted. You can post whatever you want. And the onus to remove illegal content goes on law enforcement. Why would it be the platform's job to remove illegal content? That's law enforcement's job. And law enforcement has actual oversight, even if that oversight may have some flaws, and are bound by the constitution. Some oversight is better than the current zero oversight that the companies themselves have.
I like your suggestion for 230. It bothered me early on to have to report it to the host who would have to already know about it, I got blocked for stupid opinions within moments of posting them. You can then try the FBI but their site is not user friendly and didn't allow for an easy way to alert them anonymously, local law didn't care about local things so I wasn't going to bother with them...
The thing is that I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor and the consensus seems to be that Corporations can and that simply cannot be true. That would mean that Corporations are allowed to do as they please unchecked by anything and that would mean that the government isn't upholding it's obligation to the people and that makes me big sad....
I disagree. The constitution, legally speaking, only applies to the government(s). It does not apply directly to you. There may be other laws you are violating, which are applicable to you, if you do something that happens to violate your neighbor's constitutional rights, but the violation is not because you're violating their constitutional rights. There are instances where you can violate their constitutional rights just the same as a corporation can.
For example, if your neighbor enters your property and says something derogatory about your girlfriend. You are legally allowed to kick them out of your property and, if they don't oblige, have them trespassed. If the government did the same thing (i.e. if a person walked into a public park and said something derogatory about the government, so the government had them trespassed), that would be illegal.
The same goes for Twitter.
It's not about violating the Constitution. It's about them doing something that is morally wrong, and should be illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be directly illegal, as that is potentially a violation of the company's rights to do what they want with their property. This is why the section 230 solution is so great. It doesn't make censorship directly illegal, but it means the company is liable for illegal content posted if they choose to censor.
And it makes sense in the spirit of the law. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that if something is posted on Facebook without a fact check banner or being removed, and is a particularly "spicy" take where you'd expect Facebook to have fact checked or removed it, that Facebook had tried to fact check it and came up empty, so it stayed. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that a spicy post on Facebook that doesn't have a fact check banner is verified by Facebook. That's how prominently they censor. So they should be held partially liable if something is, for example, libelous.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
In the spirit of the law a corporation is a person and they do not get any more rights than I do as a person. I am not allowed to silence my neighbor.... If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse. That person might be removed for a time even. Why is that any different for a corporation? Why is it everywhere I look everyone but the common man has all these extra privileges that I am not afforded? The Law was written for the common man, so that he might stay himself in a world that was all about incorporation and conformity.