Facebook waited too long to stop some Americans with free speech as an inalienable right from sharing information they felt was relevant to other Americans with free speech as an inalienable right - FTFY
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.
In failing to control the hippies, their insanity spread further into society, infecting the schools many years later when the former hippies became university professors, and now we're all fucked.
We should have had a shoot-on-sight policy instead.
Um, yes it can, because, you'll note, it isn't Congress. It's no different than me having the right to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you have to say. I'm not bound by the First Amendment, that's the Government.
I think the point being made is that they cannot restrict your free speech because you still have free speech regardless of what they let you post, you can still say what you want, publish books, make fliers, hand out pamphlets...
then again, I can't tell because this entire thread is just people making statements without context
Indeed, I don't think Facebook has a legal duty to either censor or not censor. However, when it comes to government placing direct or even indirect pressure on Facebook to censor more speech, that's where the problem lies. Consider that Facebook and Twitter execs have been summoned and questioned several times about their lack of progress in "fighting misinformation". This could be construed as indirect pressure to censor free speech.
Facebook can infringe your right to freedom of speech. Even I can infringe your right to freedom of speech. For example, I can threaten to sue you if you speak, or I can blackmail you, or I can threaten you with violence if you speak. These things are illegal but have all happened in the US. Facebook can infringe on your freedom of speech legally, but that doesn't mean they did the right thing. They didn't.
Freedom of speech is not given by the government, it is a god-given right, even if you are an atheist.
Perhaps this is off-topic, but there is no such thing as a 'god-given' right. First, if speech can be taken away (it can) it isn't a right. Second, seeing how people born in different countries don't have this right there are no 'god-given' rights. This term is meaningless.
First, if speech can be taken away (it can) it isn't a right.
You still have a "right," even if it is abridged or violated. That still is a right, and then that situation gets called a rights violation. I don't know that I believe in the concept of "natural rights," but plenty of people do and find that their can't be a moral justification for those violations.
The term "god-given right" (which could less controversially be called a "natural right") means that the right is more important than laws of man. So if a legal system or legislative body tries to legislate it away, the legislative body has made an error.
To think of it in judicial terms, the lower court must follow the higher court, and the natural rights are established by an authority above the highest court. They are inalienable. No whim of a king can remove them.
More than kings. Inalienable rights cannot even be surrendered by one who possesses them, only temproarially left unexpressed. You can choose to jump into a volcano, but you can't deny yourself the right to change your mind. Bodies can be imprisoned or enslaved, but that doesn't chain the mind and cannot prevent one from seeking happiness in whatever form remains possible.
And really, it's not that a natural right is more important than law, it's that they derive from a superior source that legislation
That's factually inaccurate. The larger a corporation becomes the more they are no longer free to do as they please. Just like I can refuse to acknowledge many rights of my employees a larger business cannot. We even have an entire collection of laws called antitrust that specifically limit what the larger corporations can do. Facebook currently controls around 8% of data sent downstream to all users worldwide. While that doesn't seem like much it absolutely dwarfs other social media outlets and is as close
Yes it can. The constitution is not involved here since the constitution gives a limitation on government not on private entities. This is similar to newspapers where they are allowed to pick and choose which letters to the editor to present on the editorial page for example. The government cannot even force Facebook to accept all speech because this would essentially mean that the government is restricting Facebook's free speech rights.
Perhaps it is time (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to stop arguing for more censorship and instead argue for less
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Which has what to do with Facebook?
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:2)
Facebook cannot infringe your right to freedom of speech.
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:4, Informative)
Since when is Facebook the government? Because what you cited applies only to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
What if we take the Bill of Rights to be a statement of core principles instead of just a list of things government can't do?
Re: (Score:1)
This is not infringing on your rights to not wear shoes, it means you have to wear shoes in our place of business.
Facebook is not infringing on your rights, because you can have any conversation you want. Just not on Facebook.
It is also saying we aren't going to engage in certain conversations. Which is their right as a business, whose service you are using.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:5, Informative)
Um, yes it can, because, you'll note, it isn't Congress. It's no different than me having the right to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you have to say. I'm not bound by the First Amendment, that's the Government.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point being made is that they cannot restrict your free speech because you still have free speech regardless of what they let you post, you can still say what you want, publish books, make fliers, hand out pamphlets...
then again, I can't tell because this entire thread is just people making statements without context
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook cannot infringe your right to freedom of speech.
Our education system has failed us.
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook can infringe your right to freedom of speech. Even I can infringe your right to freedom of speech. For example, I can threaten to sue you if you speak, or I can blackmail you, or I can threaten you with violence if you speak. These things are illegal but have all happened in the US. Facebook can infringe on your freedom of speech legally, but that doesn't mean they did the right thing. They didn't.
Freedom of speech is not given by the government, it is a god-given right, even if you are an atheist.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
First, if speech can be taken away (it can) it isn't a right.
You still have a "right," even if it is abridged or violated. That still is a right, and then that situation gets called a rights violation. I don't know that I believe in the concept of "natural rights," but plenty of people do and find that their can't be a moral justification for those violations.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "god-given right" (which could less controversially be called a "natural right") means that the right is more important than laws of man. So if a legal system or legislative body tries to legislate it away, the legislative body has made an error.
To think of it in judicial terms, the lower court must follow the higher court, and the natural rights are established by an authority above the highest court. They are inalienable. No whim of a king can remove them.
Re: (Score:2)
And really, it's not that a natural right is more important than law, it's that they derive from a superior source that legislation
Re: (Score:2)
That's factually inaccurate. The larger a corporation becomes the more they are no longer free to do as they please. Just like I can refuse to acknowledge many rights of my employees a larger business cannot. We even have an entire collection of laws called antitrust that specifically limit what the larger corporations can do. Facebook currently controls around 8% of data sent downstream to all users worldwide. While that doesn't seem like much it absolutely dwarfs other social media outlets and is as close
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it can. The constitution is not involved here since the constitution gives a limitation on government not on private entities. This is similar to newspapers where they are allowed to pick and choose which letters to the editor to present on the editorial page for example. The government cannot even force Facebook to accept all speech because this would essentially mean that the government is restricting Facebook's free speech rights.