 |
| Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers? [pdf] (www2.law.ucla.edu) | ||
| recommended by 2 users | 2021 | 108 points by amadeuspagel | free speech | original thread | | ||
| 2 users recommended this thread. What they said: |
| temp8964 Jul 8, 2021 | on: Why Donald Trump Is Suing Big Tech | context |
|
naasking Jul 14, 2021 | on: Twitter sees jump in govt demands to remove content of… | context
> No one has ever had a “freedom to demand others broadcast my personal speech at great technical and financial cost”. Common carriers cannot moderate message contents or discriminate based on senders/receivers. Social media now does both, but they could arguably be regulated under common carrier laws. They are of course not obligated to do this for free, but that's their business model. We had a recent discussion on this from a paper written by a legal scholar, so I suggest you check it out: |
Stop posting this. It is wrong. Read this first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145
Page 35:
> “Requiring someone to host another person’s speech is often a perfectly legitimate thing for the Government to do.” So wrote Justice Breyer, and the cases he cited (PruneYard and Rumsfeld), as well as Turner, fully support that view. PruneYard expressly rejected the claim “that a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others.” Turner and Rumsfeld rejected similar claims.