Post by Johnny
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:58:40 -0800
Post by El Castor Post by Johnny
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:14:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
"The fight against election misinformation has a new target: your
Critics of networks like Fox News and Newsmax argue that the
outlets fueled uncertainty about election results and should be
dropped by cable providers, just as Facebook and Twitter have
begun to more aggressively police their content. After this
month’s riot at the U.S. Capitol, they say, telecom giants should
rethink the programming they beam to millions of homes."
"Democrats Pressure TV Carriers to Stop Providing Newsmax, Fox
"People Pretending To Do Journalism Are Mounting Pressure
Campaigns To Silence Conservative Media "
Democrats want to silence anyone that doesn't agree with their
This silencing of conservatives started with Facebook and Twitter,
and should have been stopped immediately.
What if all these cable networks remove all conservative stations
like Fox News? You only hear what the democrats want you to hear.
Do you believe Facebook, Twitter, and the cable providers should be
able to silence anyone they don't agree with?
Yes, just as I believe that FOX News and CNN should be able to pick
and choose their broadcasters and content. What can't be permitted is
allowing the government to do the picking and choosing. That is what
the First Amendment is all about, and should be all about. When the
government starts telling Fox or Twitter what they can and cannot
broadcast we are in deep trouble.
The problem is they won't be able to pick a cable company, because the
cable companys can refuse to broadcast their show.
You seem to forget the government created section 230 that allows
Facebook and Twitter to censor content they don't agree with. That
makes the government responsible for interfering in free speech.
I have recently read an argument that supports Johnny's conclusion,
although I am not persuaded by it.
But first, there is no tenable argument that the government in creating
Section 230 makes it automatically responsible for private parties that
use the statute to censor speech. It takes much more than an affect to
establish the "state actor" prong necessary to trigger the First Amendment.
The plausible argument I have seen is based on state regulations which
don't permit Twitter to censor posts. In that case, the federal law
preempts the state law, and such preemption *might* be enough to trigger
the state actor prong. On the other hand even if it does, some speech is
censored while other speech rights are enahanced by Section 230, namely
the right not to be compelled to host objectionable speech is enhanced.
I think the courts should butt out when their is an issue between two
competing speech rights, and let Section 230 alone.