If it's public they can be charged with a crime because the gov't is not allowed to censor people. If it's "private", that's a loophole where they technically can.
It's not a loophole if it's at the government's behest. Even then I would have to see some very, very old SCOTUS rulings that say that the Constitution does not guarantee protections even when private companies are involved.
We've already seen high profile cases where a ToS is not as binding as these companies hope already, so waiving one's rights have to be more intentional than they'd like.
They were requesting it, not demanding it, though they probably threw their weight around in ways that are illegal in "persuading" the companies to censor...
The Constitution binds them from demanding it, but what if a company "just agrees with them" and censors people? They can reference the establishment doctrine, if that's a thing, to say "it's OUR site, we can do what we want. Don't like it? You're free to go somewhere else."
But here's the thing regarding these Big Tech Social Media orgs: it's NOT their site, it belongs to the TAXPAYERS.
If we declass the documents surrounding their funding & startup (In-Q-Tel, CIA, DARPA, etc) it will be made clear that they are not "private companies who can make their own rules", but they are in fact PLATFORMS owned by We The People.
And put them under the same jackholes pushing the censorship?
If it's public they can be charged with a crime because the gov't is not allowed to censor people. If it's "private", that's a loophole where they technically can.
At least based on what I understand of it all...
It's not a loophole if it's at the government's behest. Even then I would have to see some very, very old SCOTUS rulings that say that the Constitution does not guarantee protections even when private companies are involved.
We've already seen high profile cases where a ToS is not as binding as these companies hope already, so waiving one's rights have to be more intentional than they'd like.
They were requesting it, not demanding it, though they probably threw their weight around in ways that are illegal in "persuading" the companies to censor...
The Constitution binds them from demanding it, but what if a company "just agrees with them" and censors people? They can reference the establishment doctrine, if that's a thing, to say "it's OUR site, we can do what we want. Don't like it? You're free to go somewhere else."
But here's the thing regarding these Big Tech Social Media orgs: it's NOT their site, it belongs to the TAXPAYERS.
If we declass the documents surrounding their funding & startup (In-Q-Tel, CIA, DARPA, etc) it will be made clear that they are not "private companies who can make their own rules", but they are in fact PLATFORMS owned by We The People.
Created and made on our dime = ours.