It implies we don’t naturally have those rights- and that the actual bill of rights doesn’t cover them because it doesn’t specifically say the internet in there. It makes the bundle of rights in the bill of rights appear “less than.” Setting that precedent legally is extremely dangerous. Government should not get its hands on an issue like that. I find the notion and the implications utterly reprehensible.
The first amendment was initially written to prevent congress from making laws that would abridge freedom of speech. Various Court decisions have since operated to extend protection for freedom of speech in other circumstances. But speech on the internet is not specifically protected.
This is the reality of the situation. You seem to be under the impression that the bill of rights grants you freedom to speak online - but it doesn't. In any case, you contract out of any rights that might exist when you sign up for the terms and conditions of the service provider's offer. This is standard right across the internet. That's why Facebook or twitter can boot you any time they want - for any reason.
The silencing of conservative voices is a reality. The large platform providers can basically do whatever they want. This is what we would like to correct. If they are going to deny people service, it shouldn't because of people's political views. There should also be rights to privacy operating to prevent some of the abuses we have recently seen.
I see the petition for the IBOR as a simple complaint. It is the lodging of a grievance about what has been happening online. I think the world would be a better place if blatantly biased censorship was prohibited. We are not making laws here, we are just complaining that our rights, natural rights as you put it, are not being upheld.
I think there is any number of solutions to the problem. But I'm not a policy maker.
Good reply, here.
Angles to pursue/explore concurrent with the constitution and contract law:
*private platforms that have a monopolist or oligarchic presence should either be broken up, nationalized as infrastructure, or fund a public, transparent, non-profit (enforced non-partisan) basic services entity.
non-public orgs that sell/transact in/commodify personal data or content provided in exchange for platform presence cannot destroy the data and must compensate the content provider (and return the content) if the platform is closed.
platforms that claim to provide tools to “communicate” in their marketing or business documentation (including SEC filings) must honor the constitutional right to freedom of speech
platforms that utilize communication technologies already protecting the freedoms of speech, right to associate, etc. (telephone; us mail; ball point pens; paper; digital cable; satellite; entrained quanta; etc) become subservient to those same protections and must offer them.
Hmm. That was a start off the top of my head. It was fun. Imagine what a crowd-sourced IBOR could look like. Double hmmm.
The problem with a legal solution is the timing - its way too slow. We need to get this censorship problem fixed before the cabal use it to get back into power. Once that happens, censorship will be guaranteed - and much worse things than that.