Oral arguments in the NetChoice cases hint at outcomes that could uphold key free press precedents but still seriously impact certain First Amendment lawsuits
Yes, and ironically private companies are protected by the First Amendment from the government as they are not the government. The stupid argument is that these private companies are utilities like water or electricity, so they should serve everyone without any option to refuse or remove.
For the most part, it should be nothing to worry about, as the case is stupid on its face, but with how political courts in the US become, it’s a gamble on how they will rule since legal precedents and case law means nothing.
Private companies are already regulated by the government. But they are not run by them government, so if you are removed it doesn’t infringe your First Amendment. If government want to start hosting their own social media instances like some Europe countries has done with Mastodon they are welcome to do so.
The fact that you don’t like how they are regulated, is a different question. Complain to your politician that takes from bribes from these private companies to make your life worse.
Indeed. To be a public square, it has to be operated or controlled by the government, so your one sentence is flawed on its face. I tried to educate you, you are welcome to ignore me.
Yes, and ironically private companies are protected by the First Amendment from the government as they are not the government. The stupid argument is that these private companies are utilities like water or electricity, so they should serve everyone without any option to refuse or remove.
For the most part, it should be nothing to worry about, as the case is stupid on its face, but with how political courts in the US become, it’s a gamble on how they will rule since legal precedents and case law means nothing.
If we’re going to argue that social media is a utility shouldn’t the entire internet be a utility ensuring the future of net neutrality?
They’re basically the public square these days, they should be regulated by the government.
Private companies are already regulated by the government. But they are not run by them government, so if you are removed it doesn’t infringe your First Amendment. If government want to start hosting their own social media instances like some Europe countries has done with Mastodon they are welcome to do so.
The fact that you don’t like how they are regulated, is a different question. Complain to your politician that takes from bribes from these private companies to make your life worse.
You didn’t even address the core of what I said in my one sentence comment, not much point continuing this.
Indeed. To be a public square, it has to be operated or controlled by the government, so your one sentence is flawed on its face. I tried to educate you, you are welcome to ignore me.
Legally, yes, they’re private companies that are not beholden to the First Amendment.
Practically, they are the de facto town square and should be treated as such.
I don’t think you’ll get through to this person, they don’t want to understand.