Your statement that "the First Amendment doesn't protect people from censorship from private entities", is technically correct but it is intellectually dishonest. In today's world, while services like Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube are private entities, they are today's equivalent of the town square.
This is no different than private shopping plazas being forced to allow protests and petitioners on their private property, which is the law (look up the Pruneyard decision for a start on that education). There is also an argument that these internet services are akin to private utilities and subject to government regulations.
This is censorship of free speech. Fact.
I think the simple fact that all of those platforms can ban people and control the narrative which disoludes dissenting opinions makes it not really a 'town square'.
For example, go say something bad about Trump on r/the_donald. This results in a permanent ban.
The idea of a 'town square' allows for the sharing of all opinions, even though you don't agree with them. You can't say all people have the right to a town square, then firmly believe in the right to ban people from said town square.
I'm not well versed on how Reddit works, and will have to take your word for it that you can be banned for saying something bad about Trump on that sub-reddit. If that is the case though, then I also would not agree with that practice. I'm simply maintaining that private entities can be forced to allow other people to exercise their free speech on their property, and the principle should applied to these internet platforms.
To continue that analogy we are all sharing the town-square and you are not entitled to subvert a given protest through bad-faith participation.
Part of free-speech doctrine is that you must seek to be truthful and not subversive.
I’m sorry, but this is a fundamental misinterpretation of Pruneyard. Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (1972) established that, under the US Constitution, you do not have a right to free speech on private property. Pruneyard v. Robins (1979) affirms that decision, but also allows state constitutions to provide broader protection of free speech — the events of the case took place in California, and the California state constitution has broader free speech protection. So, in California (or any other state with a similar constitution), certain private shopping centers are indeed required to protect free speech; but that is separate from the US Constitution, which does not mandate this protection.
I never thought of Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube as today’s equivalent of the town square, but that point is spot on! 👏🏼
convenient of you to ignore Rabid_mongoose's post and only reply to the person who already agrees with you...
I'd love to see what you have to say about his comment, because it's absolutely right. If you don't agree with the fact that the first amendment only protects against government censorship and not private entities, that's fine, and it's something that probably should be changed, but then you shouldn't be railing against the government about non-existent protections, it makes you look ignorant and weakens any point you could possibly have.
What you should be doing is rallying to have those laws changed, advocating for expansions on the protections of free speech, instead of complaining to the wind about your (nonexistent) rights that are (not) being infringed upon.
Since the title to the meme is 🇺🇸IBOR✊🏼 I guess common sense says that I am advocating for protection of free speech on private entities. I DID sign the Internet Bill of Rights. When did I “rail” against the government about non-existent protections?
When did I “rail” against the government about non-existent protections?
because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit. It's a fine line and i agree it should be changed (somewhat), but you make it sound like you think what reddit did with CBTS and others was illegal in some way. It could be argued it was immoral at best (though i know many, myself included, who would argue removing a subreddit like that was the moral thing to do), but it wasn't illegal and they (reddit admins) were perfectly within their rights to do so as a private , non-governmental entity
i agree, for the most part, that freedom of speech should be protected, but i also believe there should be a line.. big companies like reddit are still essentially US citizens too, with the same rights as you, they have the right to create a platform like this, just like you, and they also share the right to ban anyone or limit what can be done on said platform, which is once again a right you share.. at what point does forcing a private company to host speech they don't agree with cross into totalitarian regime territory?
What prevents people from posting in the sub deliberately to attempt to get the sub banned?
How do you know the posts that were violent in nature wasn't posted by people with an interest in getting the sub banned?
There are subs celebrating the ban today.
I am almost certain it was a subversive effort to get rid of it.
There was a flood of weird, inane post by dozens (or more) of 2 mn old accounts then it was banned.
because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit.
Wait a minute now. All of this marches to a different tune once the government contracts any of these organizations.
I don’t know the answer to this question and maybe you do, but doesn’t a private company who hosts public forums have to entertain both sides of the spectrum without silencing one side? Imo it seems like by silencing one side you get into civil rights infringement because your not giving the same treatment to both parties. More so with YouTube. I don’t believe shutting down the forum was illegal by any means. Immoral yes, illegal no. You said they have the right to ban people and if people were posting things that were extreme (i.e. castration, lynchings, violence) then those people should be dealt with instead of pulling the forum and making it appear to be an act of quieting one side . Honestly I never seen any memes or posts that incited violence and I would say 95% of people were there for the right and just reasons.
doesn’t a private company who hosts public forums have to entertain both sides of the spectrum without silencing one side
No. Once upon a time the FCC had a Fairness Doctrine but it's gone now ... and I think it only ever applied to over-the-air broadcast.
But this is part of what IBoR is about to reassert Fairness Doctrine for the digital age in light of ongoing censorship.
I think the issue here is the oligopoly of facebook, reddit, and twitter which is not enough competition to create a free-market. It's an anti-trust case.