After Facebook “censors” anti-Muslim posts, hate groups sue US gov’t

Gov't lawyers now ask judge to dismiss lawsuit, as activists "lack standing."

Read the whole story

 

[marf]

Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

 

[Vapur9]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

 

[marf]

Facebook obeying the law is one thing, trying to make out that Facebook is a government tool subject to arbitrary governmental censorship in contravention of 1A is quite another!

 

[linuxfan66]

as said in first post...
freedom of speech doesnt work like this. and its morally wrong that someone is obliged to broadcast your generally offensive opinion.

 

[deltanonymous]

Vapur9[/url]":3um352zv]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

 

[staskaya]

Bearded guy looks like Borat's friend.

 

[tom_bombadil_94]

marf[/url]":1z2p6diy]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

This is true. But it is also very easy for you to agree with this because you are the sort of person who will never be banned from any internet community because your opinions are probably very pollitically correct (please don't downvote because I called someone PC, just hear me out).

Suppose one day these social media behemoths start banning people for supporting a certain progressive idea (let's say gay adoption). They would be within their right to do it, but you would disagree that your opinion is deserving of being censored.

I think this is how the plaintiffs feel in this case.
But let us hope you never have the need to express opinions that go against the stream, and then find that you can't do that, because Facebook and Twitter and the like are choosing who can use their platform based on political views.

 

[Doc Spector]

Technically, I'm 99.999% sure that what the government has filed is a motion under FRCP 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim.

The way that works is, the court assumes that everything the plaintiff has claimed is true. If there are no legal claims for which the court has power to address, the suit is dismissed.

I would expect this motion to succeed. The question, then, is whether it will be followed by a motion for sanctions against the attorney(s) who filed the suit. Hopefully, the answer will be "yes".

 

[MemberBerry]

marf[/url]":2agy1wa3]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

<<xkcd free speech comic>>

I agree that the lawsuit is without merit. However I argue that, when a service provider becomes as big as Facebook or YouTube, the argument "they can do whatever they want, it's their business" should be revisited.

This is similar to the Net Neutrality discussion. We wouldn't want Internet Service Providers to start selectively filtering the content we are allowed to access based on subjective criteria. I don't think big social networks should do that either.

I mean, in some ways, big companies like Facebook have a stronger influence than governments in some people's lives. As such, we should probably hold them to higher standards than other companies.

I think some laws are needed to prevent abuse when such companies become a "de facto" monopoly. Unless the content posted is clearly illegal, I don't think it should be removed.

Of course, there is the other side of the coin. I wouldn't like to be constantly flooded with content I personally find offensive. But this could be fixed by giving people tools to filter out such content themselves.

 

[SmokeTest]

deltanonymous[/url]":hktwppxd]

Vapur9[/url]":hktwppxd]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

That's so utterly irrelevant that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. The United States government cannot pass a law to regulate speech of private parties like Facebook, because of the first amendment.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

While the legal theory behind the lawsuit here seems to be convoluted and unworkable, it's certainly the case that we used to have arguments right here at Ars a decade and a half ago about whether user-generated-content websites that use editorial discretion over content they host (beyond merely removing clearly illegal material) would or should lose their CDA and DMCA exemptions from liability, and become liable for what content they do host. Those exemptions are descended from "common carrier" exemptions which made e.g. phone companies not liable for obscenity and other illicit conduct which might be conducted over their networks.

So, if a user-generated-content service starts exercising editorial discretion instead of acting more like a "common carrier," should it lose its liability exemptions? It used to be a matter of great discussion years ago--then suddenly seemed to drop off the radar entirely. Can anyone with legal knowledge in this area say why that is--was there some case that decided the matter, or was it always more tech-geek speculation than genuine legal concern?

As for the First Amendment angle in general--yes, private companies aren't constrained by the First Amendment, only government is; whatever speech and expression private entities choose to support or to not support, is generally their own business (except insofar as it touches on or is exempted from obscenity, libel, etc.). However, it's important to note that the First Amendment isn't just a "Freedom of Speech" right granted to us by the Constitution--no, it's a codification into the Constitution of a pre-existing moral and ethical value of the people. And if Freedom of Speech stops being respected as a value because we start to think of it as just an old paragraph constraining government rather than as an affirmative principle to be promoted in most civic and even most private contexts, for its own good and for ours--then we'll stop trying to protect it, and we'll lose it.

In this day and age, when big corporations are every bit the sort of gatekeepers to the online world that governments have long been to the offline one--we really have to reconsider how much control we as free individuals choose to allow them as arbitrary gatekeepers to have. Because our online lives are becoming as important in many contexts as our offline ones, it may soon be time to renegotiate the social contract regarding this area. We may fairly decide not to allow a few big multinational companies to become--or to remain--capable of arbitrarily blocking and shaping the flow of information and ideas between us. The power to censor ideas and information--and to shape narratives--on the scale which Google, Facebook, and a few others now have by default, dwarfs the capabilities of any Western government to do the same...

 

[Doc Spector]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":1knqzb99]

marf[/url]":1knqzb99]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

This is true. But it is also very easy for you to agree with this because you are the sort of person who will never be banned from any internet community because your opinions are probably very pollitically correct (please don't downvote because I called someone PC, just hear me out).

Suppose one day these social media behemoths start banning people for supporting a certain progressive idea (let's say gay adoption). They would be within their right to do it, but you would disagree that your opinion is deserving of being censored.

I think this is how the plaintiffs feel in this case.

Let me be the first to say "tough shit".
If you can't put out your message using other people's resources, either A) modify your message until you can, or B) use your own damn resources to spread your message, or C) STFU.
Notice that none of the options includes "Waste the court's time by filing an abjectly frivolous lawsuit".

 

[Doc Spector]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":3nn79g12]While the legal theory behind the lawsuit here seems to be convoluted and unworkable, it's certainly the case that we used to have arguments right here at Ars a decade and a half ago about whether user-generated-content websites that use editorial discretion over content they host (beyond merely removing clearly illegal material) would or should lose their CDA and DMCA exemptions from liability, and become liable for what content they do host. Those exemptions are descended from "common carrier" exemptions which made e.g. phone companies not liable for obscenity and other illicit conduct which might be conducted over their networks.

Geez, I hope these discussions were short. Newspapers have published "Letters to the editor", over which they exercised editorial control, for, well, most of the history of newspapers. Would you argue that this means they should surrender their freedom of the press?

Can anyone with legal knowledge in this area say why that is--was there some case that decided the matter, or was it always more tech-geek speculation than genuine legal concern?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is quite clear in granting a safe haven from liability. It's not vague or otherwise subject to interpretation.

 

[SmokeTest]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":386bvfw4]

marf[/url]":386bvfw4]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

This is true. But it is also very easy for you to agree with this because you are the sort of person who will never be banned from any internet community because your opinions are probably very pollitically correct (please don't downvote because I called someone PC, just hear me out).

Suppose one day these social media behemoths start banning people for supporting a certain progressive idea (let's say gay adoption). They would be within their right to do it, but you would disagree that your opinion is deserving of being censored.

I think this is how the plaintiffs feel in this case.
But let us hope you never have the need to express opinions that go against the stream, and then find that you can't do that, because Facebook and Twitter and the like are choosing who can use their platform based on political views.

False equivalence. We don't have to tolerate hate speech which is known to incite violence and put people in real danger, getting real people killed, based on some hypothetical nightmare scenario.

Nobody in history ever said "I'm sure glad we didn't stand up to the Nazis, because if we did then maybe somebody else would have done the same to things I like." They tend to say things more like "Why oh why didn't anybody do anything about the problem before it got so bad?"

Also, it's worth noting that political affiliation is not a protected class. People are free to discriminate against anyone based on their political beliefs in the United States. This isn't an oversight.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

SmokeTest[/url]":1tw7z2qw]

deltanonymous[/url]":1tw7z2qw]

Vapur9[/url]":1tw7z2qw]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

That's so utterly irrelevant that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. The United States government cannot pass a law to regulate speech of private parties like Facebook, because of the first amendment.

No, but it could say: "If you are a company of [x largeness] and exercise any sort of editorial control over user-generated material aside from removing 'illegal content' (where 'illegal content' constitutes

• ), then you are as civilly and/or criminally liable for broadcasting the content of that user-generated material as is the original speaker." And suddenly, government has a way, which is probably perfectly legal, to compel large companies to act as common carriers of user-generated content rather than as editors of it.

 

[SmokeTest]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":1hg15ypd]

SmokeTest[/url]":1hg15ypd]

deltanonymous[/url]":1hg15ypd]

Vapur9[/url]":1hg15ypd]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

That's so utterly irrelevant that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. The United States government cannot pass a law to regulate speech of private parties like Facebook, because of the first amendment.

No, but it could say: "If you are a company of [x largeness] and exercise any sort of editorial control over user-generated material aside from removing 'illegal content' (where 'illegal content' constitutes

• ), then you are as civilly and/or criminally liable for broadcasting the content of that user-generated material as is the original speaker." And suddenly, government has a way, which is probably perfectly legal, to compel large companies to act as common carriers of user-generated content rather than as editors of it.

• 
  I'm pretty sure labeling something as a common carrier takes more than simply passing a law to restrict their speech in contradiction of the first amendment, and any such law would be immediately struck down as obviously unconstitutional.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

Doc Spector[/url]":3p9mcmss]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":3p9mcmss]While the legal theory behind the lawsuit here seems to be convoluted and unworkable, it's certainly the case that we used to have arguments right here at Ars a decade and a half ago about whether user-generated-content websites that use editorial discretion over content they host (beyond merely removing clearly illegal material) would or should lose their CDA and DMCA exemptions from liability, and become liable for what content they do host. Those exemptions are descended from "common carrier" exemptions which made e.g. phone companies not liable for obscenity and other illicit conduct which might be conducted over their networks.

Geez, I hope these discussions were short. Newspapers have published "Letters to the editor", over which they exercised editorial control, for, well, most of the history of newspapers. Would you argue that this means they should surrender their freedom of the press?

Newspapers grew up under a different pedigree and fewer constraints than did telecommunications services initially--but even so, they have always been liable for obscenity and other content even in "letters-to-the-editor." The point of the exemptions granted by CDA and DMCA for obscene and copyright-infringing content, etc., on the internet is that internet services are effectively allowed to be exempt from such liabilities in the case of user-generated content. Government could choose to remove those exemptions--in which case internet services would be just as liable for publishing obscene or copyright-infringing content as a newspaper would be for publishing an obscene letter-to-the-editor or one which they knew or should-have-known was copyright-infringing.

Obscenity is not protected speech. Copyright infringement is not protected speech. yet we chose ~20 years ago to allow internet services to have even greater protection from liability for such things than newspapers have had. That is an exemption which is likely to continue indefinitely--but it was and is a case of special exemption, and theoretically it doesn't have to continue.

 

[Router66]

MemberBerry[/url]":cgfli6dz]

marf[/url]":cgfli6dz]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

<<xkcd free speech comic>>

I agree that the lawsuit is without merit. However I argue that, when a service provider becomes as big as Facebook or YouTube, the argument "they can do whatever they want, it's their business" should be revisited.
....................

I think some laws are needed to prevent abuse when such companies become a "de facto" monopoly. Unless the content posted is clearly illegal, I don't think it should be removed.
.............................

Nope. Facebook and co have taken their decisions and it's up to their users to judge whether they participate or not. I had often been offended by FB's censorship and that's why I finally opted out of it. I may totally despise FB but it's success lays in it's policies. Don't like it (like me)? Unregister and try to make others follow your example.

 

[Doc Spector]

SmokeTest[/url]":3o2yfm73]
Also, it's worth noting that political affiliation is not a protected class. People are free to discriminate against anyone based on their political beliefs in the United States. This isn't an oversight.

Not necessarily true; in the employment context, some states protect political activity from retaliation in the employment arena.

 

[Doc Spector]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":2q7y4ic9]

SmokeTest[/url]":2q7y4ic9]

deltanonymous[/url]":2q7y4ic9]

Vapur9[/url]":2q7y4ic9]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

That's so utterly irrelevant that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. The United States government cannot pass a law to regulate speech of private parties like Facebook, because of the first amendment.

No, but it could say: "If you are a company of [x largeness] and exercise any sort of editorial control over user-generated material aside from removing 'illegal content' (where 'illegal content' constitutes

• ), then you are as civilly and/or criminally liable for broadcasting the content of that user-generated material as is the original speaker." And suddenly, government has a way, which is probably perfectly legal, to compel large companies to act as common carriers of user-generated content rather than as editors of it.

• 
  
  A law such as you describe would fall fairly readily to a 14th-Amendment challenge. Like any other unconstitutional law, it is void ab initio.

 

[listenupguys]

marf wrote:
Facebook obeying the law is one thing, trying to make out that Facebook is a government tool subject to arbitrary governmental censorship in contravention of 1A is quite another!

What about that story from when the migrant crisis began in Europe, when Angela Merkel was recorded asking Mark Zuckerberg what Facebook is going to do about all the anti-migrant and anti-Merkel posts on Facebook? That does kind of sound like the German government has an arrangement with Facebook, to me at least. The video is no doubt still on YouTube.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

SmokeTest[/url]":1bpj89pb]

deltanonymous[/url]":1bpj89pb]

Vapur9[/url]":1bpj89pb]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

That's so utterly irrelevant that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. The United States government cannot pass a law to regulate speech of private parties like Facebook, because of the first amendment.

That's a lot like saying, "Private companies aren't bound by the limits of the Constitution regarding discrimination--they only bar the government from discriminating. Therefore, the government cannot pass laws to protect private companies from discriminating against private individuals."

Obviously, we decided that we could, because the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against are more important than the rights of companies to discriminate. We could make a similar calculus regarding the rights of individuals to speak freely versus the rights of big companies to suppress that speech.

No one should be forced to listen to another person's speech--a fact which is ever-more-clear in today's world of filtering and voluntary association through social networks--but perhaps in this day and age, big companies acting as gatekeepers to what is "acceptable" speech online are acting a lot like gatekeepers at formerly-public spaces which are now being enclosed, somewhat arbitrarily letting some into the now-private parks and keeping others out. I'm not saying we will ever renegotiate the relationships here--especially since the younger generation seems to value "safe spaces" more than "free speech"--but we could, if enough of us wanted to.

 

[marf]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":1mm7s352]

marf[/url]":1mm7s352]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

This is true. But it is also very easy for you to agree with this because you are the sort of person who will never be banned from any internet community because your opinions are probably very pollitically correct (please don't downvote because I called someone PC, just hear me out).

Suppose one day these social media behemoths start banning people for supporting a certain progressive idea (let's say gay adoption). They would be within their right to do it, but you would disagree that your opinion is deserving of being censored.

I think this is how the plaintiffs feel in this case.
But let us hope you never have the need to express opinions that go against the stream, and then find that you can't do that, because Facebook and Twitter and the like are choosing who can use their platform based on political views.

Oh I've been banned for sharing honestly held negative opinions of Islam, despite being an apostate of Islam... it sucks but there it is.

I've also been banned from the Guardian website on four separate occasions for daring to state that I disagree with the routine religious/cultural/prophylactic circumcision of male children, even when making the reasoned argument that a simple pinprick to a girls parts is considered FGM under international law.

So yeah, banned for basically asking for equality in law for male kids, and banned for sharing my own personal experience of Islam and leaving it behind.

"telling the truth in times of deceit is a revolutionary act"

 

[iamaelephant]

I wish I had the energy it must take to be an anti Muslim activist.

 

[Doc Spector]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":b1jiichg]

Doc Spector[/url]":b1jiichg]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":b1jiichg]While the legal theory behind the lawsuit here seems to be convoluted and unworkable, it's certainly the case that we used to have arguments right here at Ars a decade and a half ago about whether user-generated-content websites that use editorial discretion over content they host (beyond merely removing clearly illegal material) would or should lose their CDA and DMCA exemptions from liability, and become liable for what content they do host. Those exemptions are descended from "common carrier" exemptions which made e.g. phone companies not liable for obscenity and other illicit conduct which might be conducted over their networks.

Geez, I hope these discussions were short. Newspapers have published "Letters to the editor", over which they exercised editorial control, for, well, most of the history of newspapers. Would you argue that this means they should surrender their freedom of the press?

Newspapers grew up under a different pedigree and fewer constraints than did telecommunications services initially--but even so, they have always been liable for obscenity and other content even in "letters-to-the-editor." The point of the exemptions granted by CDA and DMCA for obscene and copyright-infringing content, etc., on the internet is that internet services are effectively allowed to be exempt from such liabilities in the case of user-generated content. Government could choose to remove those exemptions--in which case internet services would be just as liable for publishing obscene or copyright-infringing content as a newspaper would be for publishing an obscene letter-to-the-editor or one which they knew or should-have-known was copyright-infringing.

Obscenity is not protected speech.

Depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time.

Copyright infringement is not protected speech.

Fair use is definitionally not copyright infringement. And what is "fair use"? Why, it's the mechanism by which copyright law retains compliance with the first amendment.

we chose ~20 years ago to allow internet services to have even greater protection from liability for such things than newspapers have had.

Yes, we made this choice... and it was the right one. Information services, unlike newspapers, have immediacy in their interactivity. Writing a letter to the editor for publication takes time, and the editor can take time to decide whether or not to publish. Information services, on the other hand, are immediate... type submit, and your message is up. It may be hours, days, or even never before a human editor reviews your contribution. This is possible because the information service is not liable for your words, pictures, or whatever... an aggrieved person must sue the person who wrote it, not the person who owns a computer which passed it along without human oversight.

 

[Doc Spector]

listenupguys[/url]":1le4xtnq]

marf wrote:
Facebook obeying the law is one thing, trying to make out that Facebook is a government tool subject to arbitrary governmental censorship in contravention of 1A is quite another!

What about that story from when the migrant crisis began in Europe, when Angela Merkel was recorded asking Mark Zuckerberg what Facebook is going to do about all the anti-migrant and anti-Merkel posts on Facebook? That does kind of sound like the German government has an arrangement with Facebook, to me at least. The video is no doubt still on YouTube.

You seem to be working under a bit of a misunderstanding. The anti-Islamic nutjobs didn't sue GERMANY for interfering with their CDA section 230 rights. The anti-Islamic nutjobs sued the United States Attorney General for interfering with their CDA section 230 rights.

 

[marf]

iamaelephant[/url]":2e2dolru]I wish I had the energy it must take to be an anti Muslim activist.

I'm not anti-muslim as such, just anti those who want to shut down all discussion of Islam because its "racist"

Getting past the liberal bias and political correctness is hard, and I say that as a "liberal" (in the classical sense)

Ben Affleck/Bill Maher/Sam Harris is a good example of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

 

[SergeiEsenin]

Doc Spector[/url]":1fm2vfvn]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":1fm2vfvn]

SmokeTest[/url]":1fm2vfvn]

deltanonymous[/url]":1fm2vfvn]

Vapur9[/url]":1fm2vfvn]

as the United States has no control over what Facebook or any other company does.

Can we demonstrate that the opposite is true?

Take, for instance, when FB Live videos of a police shooting get taken down (although the "technical glitch" may have been police actively tampering with evidence). Or blocking of live feeds of the DAPL protests. Or that FB actually provides govts with a tool to censor posts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/08/castile_shooting_police_deletion/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/15/12926058/facebook-dakota-pipeline-video-censorship-protest
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/technology/facebook-censorship/

Zuckerberg said that when Facebook faces an ultimatum, it usually decides to abide by laws, even if they're oppressive.

That line is so incredibly wrong that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. Governments have a lot of say in what companies do, it's called a law.

That's so utterly irrelevant that it's not even worth bothering to prove it wrong. The United States government cannot pass a law to regulate speech of private parties like Facebook, because of the first amendment.

No, but it could say: "If you are a company of [x largeness] and exercise any sort of editorial control over user-generated material aside from removing 'illegal content' (where 'illegal content' constitutes

• ), then you are as civilly and/or criminally liable for broadcasting the content of that user-generated material as is the original speaker." And suddenly, government has a way, which is probably perfectly legal, to compel large companies to act as common carriers of user-generated content rather than as editors of it.

• 
  
  A law such as you describe would fall fairly readily to a 14th-Amendment challenge. Like any other unconstitutional law, it is void ab initio.

• 
  
  I don't think the Court would agree with you any more than it would throw out obscenity
  and all liability for broadcasting it. To this day and age, broadcast networks can be fined for obscenity. Internet services were exempted from such liability--but that exemption is repealable and they could be made as liable as television networks are, if we actually wanted them to be. (Which we really don't, except maybe insofar as we could use it as a cudgel, in the manner I've outlined).

 

[Doc Spector]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":4vy9cvpi]
I don't think the Court would agree with you any more than it would throw out obscenity
and all liability for broadcasting it.

Then... you'd be wrong. As I said, whether or not obscenity is protected speech depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time. Some states have more extensive protections for freedom of speech than does the federal first amendment.

The right to free speech in Oregon is broader than the federal level:[8]

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
— Oregon Constitution, Art. I §8

In State v. Robertson,[9] the Oregon Supreme Court has cited this right against parts of Oregon's disorderly conduct statute, against content-based restrictions on billboards and murals, and against laws restricting the sale of pornography.[10] Later in 1987, the court cited this provision when it abolished the state's obscenity statute in State v. Henry.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Oregon Constitution.

And yes, a law that said that companies of size X that did (whatever) lose their rights would fail a 14th amendment challenge... handily.

Internet services were exempted from such liability--but that exemption is repealable and they could be made as liable as television networks are, if we actually wanted them to be. (Which we really don't, except maybe insofar as we could use it as a cudgel, in the manner I've outlined).

Not in Oregon. Well, not without a Constitutional amendment, first.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

Doc Spector[/url]":2rksr324]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":2rksr324]
I don't think the Court would agree with you any more than it would throw out obscenity
and all liability for broadcasting it.

Then... you'd be wrong. As I said, whether or not obscenity is protected speech depends on which state you happen to be standing in at the time. Some states have more extensive protections for freedom of speech than does the federal first amendment.

The right to free speech in Oregon is broader than the federal level:[8]

No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.
— Oregon Constitution, Art. I §8

In State v. Robertson,[9] the Oregon Supreme Court has cited this right against parts of Oregon's disorderly conduct statute, against content-based restrictions on billboards and murals, and against laws restricting the sale of pornography.[10] Later in 1987, the court cited this provision when it abolished the state's obscenity statute in State v. Henry.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Oregon Constitution.

And yes, a law that said that companies of size X that did (whatever) lose their rights would fail a 14th amendment challenge... handily.

Internet services were exempted from such liability--but that exemption is repealable and they could be made as liable as television networks are, if we actually wanted them to be. (Which we really don't, except maybe insofar as we could use it as a cudgel, in the manner I've outlined).

Not in Oregon. Well, not without a Constitutional amendment, first.

Then any internet service which wants to operate safely only Oregon might be perfectly free to ignore the repeal of CDA (though still not DMCA) safe harbor provisions. Assuming they wanted to operate in the other 49 states without risking a constant barrage of various obscenity charges and lawsuits though, potentially both in state and federal courts, they'd have to adjust their practices to the new legal reality.

 

[TellarHK]

심돌산[/url]":10alvlm4]I don't kniw anything about this anti-islam group, but i don't automaticlly trust the classifications of the southern poverty law center. Pretty much any group that doesn't mirror the SLPC's own social politics counts as a hate group in their eyes.

The SLPC has occasionally gone a hair too far, for some people's opinions but not often. And in this case, they're spot on. These are real scumbags.

 

[SergeiEsenin]

심돌산[/url]":3svgkpas]I don't kniw anything about this anti-islam group, but i don't automaticlly trust the classifications of the southern poverty law center. Pretty much any group that doesn't mirror the SLPC's own social politics counts as a hate group in their eyes.

The SPLC is a political advocacy organization, not a neutral arbiter of speech and thought (as if there could be such a thing, which would not eventually be corrupted). Who defines for the definers?

 

[bri2000]

tom_bombadil_94[/url]":238dcd6y]

marf[/url]":238dcd6y]Frivolous lawsuit is frivolous

"Because their materials have been regularly removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and because they have been threatened via those platforms, the plaintiffs collectively argue that the First Amendment Rights of their groups have been violated"

This is true. But it is also very easy for you to agree with this because you are the sort of person who will never be banned from any internet community because your opinions are probably very pollitically correct (please don't downvote because I called someone PC, just hear me out).

Suppose one day these social media behemoths start banning people for supporting a certain progressive idea (let's say gay adoption). They would be within their right to do it, but you would disagree that your opinion is deserving of being censored.

I think this is how the plaintiffs feel in this case.
But let us hope you never have the need to express opinions that go against the stream, and then find that you can't do that, because Facebook and Twitter and the like are choosing who can use their platform based on political views.

I've been banned, suspended and had posts deleted from a few places for being that most terrible and unfashionable of things: a moderate centrist more concerned with money, the economy and keeping society stable than this replay of the same type of ideological BS and Gesinnungsethik thinking (German term for pursuing ideological purity no matter what the costs) that damn near destroyed western civilisation in the first half of the 20th century.

I also seem to have an apparently rare, going by 20 or so years of the Internet, ability to be confident enough in my views that I don't feel the need to shout them at every available opportunity.

 

[marf]

listenupguys[/url]":24caf64p]

marf wrote:
Facebook obeying the law is one thing, trying to make out that Facebook is a government tool subject to arbitrary governmental censorship in contravention of 1A is quite another!

What about that story from when the migrant crisis began in Europe, when Angela Merkel was recorded asking Mark Zuckerberg what Facebook is going to do about all the anti-migrant and anti-Merkel posts on Facebook? That does kind of sound like the German government has an arrangement with Facebook, to me at least. The video is no doubt still on YouTube.

If they violated Facebook's terms of service, then fair enough.

Also, I'm pretty sure there is no hard and fast right to freedom of speech in Germany, especially when it comes to "hate speech". There is afterall some history there.

I say that as someone who is torn between respecting Merkel for doing the charitable thing in accepting these people, and criticising her for allowing this many people in without the ability to do any real background checking.

 

[TellarHK]

SergeiEsenin[/url]":193rd31t]

심돌산[/url]":193rd31t]I don't kniw anything about this anti-islam group, but i don't automaticlly trust the classifications of the southern poverty law center. Pretty much any group that doesn't mirror the SLPC's own social politics counts as a hate group in their eyes.

The SPLC is a political advocacy organization, not a neutral arbiter of speech and thought (as if there could be such a thing, which would not eventually be corrupted). Who defines for the definers?

The SPLC does a pretty good job keeping track of fringe groups, and when they classify something, they've usually got pretty good reasons and evidence to support it in a way that should convince most people without a "dog in the fight" over that issue. They're an advocacy group whose primary goal is to safeguard equal rights for all people, period. That's not what you make it sound like at all.