Is There a First Amendment Right to Social Media?

[@larrytownsend8837]

Thank you for this

[@dragonf1092]

The constitution applies to all American citizens not just the state or federal government.

[@dragonf1092]

Yes there is a 1st amendment rights to free speech on the Internet. 1st amendment protects all speech,text,print, text, comment, tweet, post,are all forms of speech therefore protected under the 1st amendment.

[@dragonf1092]

Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights. If two or more person's conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district in the Free exercise or enjoyment of any rights or privileges secured to him by the constitution or laws of the united states, or because of his having so exercised the same... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[@TRD-667]

Just had a three day long argument in a comments section about this. I quoted many legal experts against my opponent. His response was to quote someone saying that legal experts have a tendency towards bias. Well, we all have that. He couldn't identify their biases though. Just expected me to accept that the probability of bias meant they were all wrong, and his unqualified logic correct. I couldn't get him to see that there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of publication, and that he was actually against the 1st amendment because he didn't believe in a free press. Allegedly a social media corporation is not a corollary of a press, and it has to let everyone use it, simply because he believed that is what it is for. It's coming to something when a socialist Englishman has to explain the constitution to an American whilst defending the rights of capitalism. People like him would lose their whole identity if they had to admit that they didn't understand the 1st amendment.

[@cmndrkool321]

It sounds like you ran into a sovereign citizen. I had the same encounter and Googled if his argument held any water- it doesn’t. KZbin is not America. Our tax dollars do not support the KZbin servers. The world does not revolve around America.

[@TheElvenKeys]

so many people are okay with it because they're only banning people who are on the "other side"

[@TheElvenKeys]

@Bryan Mack Who said I want to discriminate trans people

[@YourOnlyHope89.]

Well good to know! Now that we know that government agencies where doing just that!

[@dragonf1092]

Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both, or may be sentenced to death. A policy, terms of service is a custom applicable under title 18 U.S.C. section 242.

[@jjkoser1374]

Isn’t it a conflict of interest that some of these big tech companies that provide social media outlets donate large sums of money to “certain” political parties?

[@theyaretheconspiracy]

AT&T can't block your phone calls because of something you said..Can you imagine a 30 day block on your phone because of what you said?, Clearly there is collusion between government and corporations to silence free speech (under the guise of protecting us from hate speech) all in the name of community standards. This was supposedly to protect them from liability.. All Trump did was remove that liability protection.. if he really wanted free speech he would have changed their classification as to what they are.. To me they are a phone..so I should be able to say what I want.. If someone doesn't like it.. they can block everything I say..how much more free could it get? I can't even do that with my phone..

[@Talksonlaw]

The power of corporations to make independent political spending is a controversial legal doctrine. It was supported 5-4 in the Citizens United case. Do you think corporations should not be able to make or donate money to create political ads etc?

[@MiddleMAGA]

@@Talksonlaw Corporations absolutely should not be allowed to donate money to political ads and politicians. That's why our government is not operating in the best interest of the people. You can't have these private institutions monopolizing the internet, donating money to the government and be contracted by the government and call them private companies at the same time. This incestous relationship between the government and social media is an end round to violating our first amendment rights. (see Fauci & Zuckerberg emails, then Facebook bans discussion based on that)

[@waynefabian2428]

InstaBlaster.

[@destinypreston989]

It's more of a conflict that they host these entities on their platforms and by default, when views that don't align are shadowbanned, banned outright, or censored, this seems to be the legitimization of the element of whether this is an extension of the government because those people are listed as such on their profiles.

[@ray495903314]

maybe it's time to change that because they hold so much power over communication especially in a pandemic. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins which took place in the supreme court over California's constitution giving affinitive right to free speech (silicon valley is located in CA)

[@getyourgameon1990]

So ironically you want to take away these social media platforms first amendment rights

[@getyourgameon1990]

@@LanceCaraccioli You misunderstand they have not messed with your freedom of speech because they are not the Government...Asking for Government to step in is way to much big brother

[@jasonrafael5945]

Just because something is, doesn't mean it's as it should be. I personally believe we need a constitution to protect us from our corporate overlords. People shouldn't be punished for their speech by losing their jobs (unless the speech was made on the job (unprofessional) or in the name of a company), and people should have a right to their speech on speech platforms and platforms should have a right to exist on media outlets. Inciting violence is not a part of free speech, and so that should, of course, be banned and dealt with as it would be outside of social media, but hate speech, ignorant speech, no matter how much I disagree with it, is. free speech. Believing in Free Speech means you believe in it beyond the constitution. But then again, on the other hand, however, though... so many delusional people keep proving that "better speech" (whether evidence based, or the pointing out of a lack of evidence of baseless assertions, or both) doesn't do anything to combat false claims to people who have their mind made up that all contradicting speech is fake by default. Too many people suffer from a combination of appeal to authority, ad hominem fallacy, and confirmation bias. "I believe my source without evidence because their word is the ultimate authority because they confirm my biases, and I don't believe contradictory information, even with evidence, or even when they point out I don't actually have evidence, because they're fake news as far as I will view them since they don't confirm my biases!"

[@destinypreston989]

The government has simply gotten far too big which is why a revolution is never a bad idea, it's our constitutional right.

[@David888B]

LMAO at "corporate overlords." You use social media voluntarily, you freely agree to their terms, you're free to stop using them whenever you want if you don't like how they operate. You don't need the government to protect you from your own decisions.

[@jasonrafael5945]

@@David888B yeah, this is the same thing people say about low wages. “YoU wOrK tHeIr VoLuNtArIly. You can quit (and go to another job that will pay you equally low or rot in the streets)” By the way, it’s so childish when people are like “don’t like something? QUIT!” You have a few problems with your partner? Obviously that means there’s nothing good about them. Don’t work on your relationship. DUMP THEM! Don’t like low wages? Obviously that means you don’t need money. Don’t fight for fair wages. QUIT and rot in the streets! Think free speech should be protected? Obviously that means you hate everything about the platform. Shut up and get outta heeya!!! The thing is, you support censorship because it’s in your favor. The thing is, you support it because you don’t have enough foresight to think your views could ever be censored by the very same excuses you use. The views that get censored, I disagree with. I think their views are disruptive, cause division, and are dangerous. And I recognize the people who spout them can hardly be reasoned with because the tactics of their views are misinformation, willful ignorance, fear mongering, gross exaggerations that confirm their biases, and mockery that, ironically, is designed to shut down discourse. But I think a more dangerous threat, in the long term, is a majority having a monopoly on speech. Because all it takes is for the tides to shift and have the good speech be on the censored end. Social media Is how we communicate ideas today. It’s antiquated to pretend we get our info from just books and tv and only talk to people next to us. Speech has reached further than just from our local libraries, newsstands, and pamphlets passed out on streets. We live beyond just the real world. Social media is the new public space. We now live in the digital world. And in the digital world, social media are the new overlords. Not quite as stable as actual governments, but they have control and influence, nonetheless. People find work in the digital space. People find relationships in the digital world. People are even activists in the digital world (and I’m not talking about people being “keyboard warriors”, I’m talking about actual organizations who use the digital world to get their word out). Free speech should be protected from the corporate overlords who run the platforms. If we don’t protect it here, we won’t have it where we need it most. To say the authority has the right to deny speech is fundamentally opposed to the concept of freedom of speech. To say an authority should censor people makes no difference if that authority is a private corporation or a government. To say an authority should punish people for their speech makes no difference if that authority is your boss or the government (except in how they can punish you, of course, but the intimidation is the same). To say people are free to stop being friends with someone for their speech, THAT is within the realm of free speech. It’s peers disagreeing and having the consequence of not being invited or liked. That’s not an authority destroying their survival to coerce acceptable speech. “Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequence” yeah, from your peers. But free speech does mean free from consequence from authority. If you are punished, if you are straight up censored, by an authority for your speech, there is no free speech.

[@David888B]

@@jasonrafael5945 LOL No one is going to read your whole life story. Social media companies are not bound by the 1a, they don't owe anyone free speech. Get used to it if you plan on using them. If you don't like it, don't use them.

[@jasonrafael5945]

@@David888B “social media companies are not bound by 1a” No shit.. that’s why I said we *need* a constitution that protects it. Reason you are against it is because you are fundamentally opposed to freedom of speech. And that’s all I’m gonna say because whatever you have to say next will probably already have been rebutted in my previous comments, just like this one already was in literally my first comment.

[@tigerpisces5506]

It is interesting that the parents are not mindful to the safety of their children. Simple solution to requiring mature adults on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok. Require subscriptions to get adult only access to all social media with phones numbers, addresses and credit cards. That should fix the free aspect of social media and if Jack and Jill are allowed on social media mom and dad can pay for it and shut the Congress out of this media jungle.

[@SanitysVoid]

Are these social media platforms publishers or town hall forums? They have to pick one they can't eat the cake too.

[@SanitysVoid]

@FusionGamer9600 NO they have to pick one. It's like the law or something. Might have to do with taxes.

[@Rollacoastertycoon]

ACLU, enough said

[@donnalombardo5061]

This is good to know.

[@A5tr0101]

Community guidelines are essential, else we could have some pretty grievous looking posts on social media. Thanks for the explanation, i wish conservative American citizens would understand this, they need true information fed to them by a spoon

[@donduro3]

you are okay with it because they're only banning people who are on the "other side" the side you don't like, but there is a good probability that you will change your opinion when somebody from your side will get that treatment Can You Refuse Service to Anyone? Not exactly. The law says that a business may refuse service, provided they aren’t discriminating against certain customers and violating anti-discrimination laws. www.hourly.io/post/right-to-refuse-service

[@nailsaggitarius4212]

Thank you. Very informative.

[@Talksonlaw]

Thanks for the comment, Nail! Prof. Strossen is great.

[@nailsaggitarius4212]

@@Talksonlaw Love American Law. The Constitution is most important. I wish we have the same one.

[@KingTairun]

@@nailsaggitarius4212 But you see how they bypass the Constitution, If information is privately owned you have no rights so good luck. You have no rights when dealing with corporations

[@nailsaggitarius4212]

@@KingTairun Sherrman Act would beat big corporation lust for power.

[@KingTairun]

@@nailsaggitarius4212 No backdoors in the law for that? we live in capitalist society $ rules the law, not justice. This is impressive of how evil it is, China is nothing compared to this. The media eliminated the republican party in one sweep.

[@andiecook2351]

Very clear video! Very relevant to point out that people are seemingly confused with freedom of the press law and how it relates to social media and not just traditional media outlets.

[@Talksonlaw]

Thanks for the comment Andie!

[@chrisvSTL]

@TALKSONLAW ok so I understand that the private company (FB, Twitter, etc) has no 1st amendment obligation. I am seeking clarity on a government social media page (police FB page, a sheriff FB page, a city or township FB page) regarding the entity itself, not the hosting corporation, blocking select users, or deleting comments that decent or disagree with the government agency? Say video of a use of force by a police officer is uploaded and people post non vulgar non threatening comments expressing their thoughts on the incident, and those that condemn the incident are (A) blocked (B) comments deleted. Could you possibly direct me to reliable information. I have only found 3 cases so far that are not student/education related. The most recent was the Trump 2019, that later was dismissed since he no longer was president.

[@David888B]

@@chrisvSTL The 1A protects you from the government only, not from private companies. There were cases against trump and AOC and one other where the courts said the elected official violated the 1A by blocking people. Government employees shouldn't block anyone. Private companies can block all day.

[@destinypreston989]

I find it a testament to the intelligence that no longer exists in this country, that this video only had 143 likes and 78 comments yet, everyone is aware that we have kids eating tide pods and snorting condoms. A Hollywood harlot can endorse a new water bottle and the crowd goes wild. Needless to say, these recent generations are nearly completely depleted of those who care about their constitutional rights, becoming a scholar or educating themselves on something other than being an influencer.

[@lindslou9654]

Thank you! Good to know the truth. 💗

[@Talksonlaw]

Thanks for the comment Linds.

[@BigScewleo]

Great video. Just being straight up about it.

[@zachocracy]

_PACKINGHAM V N CAROLINA SUPREME COURT_ defines social media as a **public square** where 1st amendment rights are applicable. This case was to defend a sex offender's right to have social media access. However these social media publishers are literally getting away with unlawful actions.

[@85Z28]

Exactly social media is like a public utility .. they do not get to pick and choose who they want to remove or not remove from their platform..

[@Talksonlaw]

The public square argument is an interesting one and, as you mentioned, SCOTUS said as much in the Packingham opinion. But one thing to point out - that case involved the GOVERNMENT keeping someone off of social media, not the company itself. It’s a different question whether Facebook could remove sex offenders from their platform. Here, Prof Strossen is pointing out that the company can in fact decide who it lets on or kicks off without triggering First Amendment concerns.

[@dragonf1092]

​@@Talksonlawlook up and read title 18 U.S.C. sections 241 and 242.

[@lukefox01]

Its time for the supreme court to rule that the first amendment applies to private companies as well

[@davlor86]

tell that to Trump

[@woolfie8766]

Why? The government shouldn’t be allowed to force social media platforms to be a platform of speech for anyone

[@woolfie8766]

Paradoxical Nightmare ah yes the intelligent right back at it again with their facts and logic in responses 😎

[@woolfie8766]

Paradoxical Nightmare no it doesn’t you braindead dipshit lmao

[@akumakorgar]

lol Good luck, the Supreme Court almost always rules on the side of big business

[@chaosu2755]

You should resign from the laws school. I cannot image how you educate our kids...

[@Talksonlaw]

Actually she won the award for “outstanding teaching” at her law school last year... but she admittedly does NOT personally use any form of social media.

[@Rollacoastertycoon]

@@Talksonlaw I knew a guy who was the "best shot" in the flight. Lets just say he stuck to teaching

[@getyourgameon1990]

She right so why is she a bad teacher?

[@dragonf1092]

​@@getyourgameon1990she's wrong therefore yes she is a bad teacher. She and others like her are the problem in America today too many traitors. Censoring Americans free speech and banning them for exercising their free speech is a crime under the legal law. Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights. Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.

[@FlawdaBoy4547]

Yes I thumbs up the video it was a great video overall thank you for the information. It’s just sad that at one time I remember going on Facebook and being able to sell a gun or items associated with the gun and post anything I wanted to without getting flagged for it. But now I can’t do that without getting flagged. The only platform right now are you don’t get flagged is Snapchat because Facebook doesn’t owns that one

[@maryannemacisaac8007]

Great content! This is very helpful :)

[@RamonaCarter-td3tu]

Bolony

[@teammist3266]

THE ANSWER IS YES , SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT ! it’s not your fault if people don’t agree or have a different outlook / opinion it’s how we learn to understand each other more ...but you people want to keep suppressing till we’re hysterically mad .

[@TRD-667]

In what way are you qualified to claim that every constitutional expert I can find is wrong? I'm not the brightest, but even I can see that see that the 1st amendment gives freedom of the press and only prohibits government control of free speech. Freedom of the press means twitter doesn't have to let you tweet. It is free to publish what ever it wants, and not publish what it doesn't. You are free to speak elsewhere. If you want the right to say what you like on social media, then you need a whole new amendment. In fact, by insisting that facebook etc should have to publish you, you are showing that you oppose the first amendment rights of a free press.

[@buttonsf3293]

I was kicked off Twitter for calling someone a nasty name because they were making fun of someone who stutters. It's their platform and if they choose to allow people with disabilities to be denigrated, I'm happy to stay away. :) Bonus: I won't be tempted to call people a cunt if I'm not on Twitter LOL

[@buttonsf3293]

@Bryan Mack They don't/didn't allow appeal on a permaban

[@dragonf1092]

FREE SPEECH They have the right to read what you have to say or scroll the fk on. No one has the legal right to censor or ban any American citizen for anything they say. U.C.C. 1-308 all rights reserved with prejudice freedom of speech.

[@buttonsf3293]

@@dragonf1092 🤣 bless your heart

[@85Z28]

That is completely not true..

[@Talksonlaw]

Which part?

[@BYCloe-u]

Exactly .. which part?