USA Supreme Court unanimously rules that access to social media is a constitutionally-protected right

[You_are_a_cunt]

How I social media:

use facebook to talk to people that don't use other platforms that I use

report hatespeech pages because they're bigoted assholes

catch the occasional giveaway/free game promo

scroll through 100 ads/marketing campaigns to read one funny post from one person

 

spew random stuff on twitter and occasionally make fun of Linus (he's "pretty handy for a nerd")

 

Does YouTube count as social media?

[Mooshi]

Either I'm tired or I just read it's a constitutional right for a sex offender to harass potentially more victims online because free speech or something..please tell me I read that wrong.

 

Social media is a privilege, not a right. If you want to molest others, I want you dafuq away from cyberspace. If you're not molesty mcmolester pants, by all means go to tech forums or furry sites all you want!

[Ertman]

7 hours ago, rn8686 said:

Its not just the sex offenders rights, rather that it could have much larger effects on others right to free speech in the future. 

Sadly the point you reference literally brought up as the court case testing the waters.

 

I was referencing that they COULD still restrict a specific persons freedoms online as they already do in the physical world without limiting the freedoms of the general public. The sex offenders is just one group where this restriction already exists in the physical world and I see no reason why online access can't be constitutionally protected while at the same time being limited for specific people.

[Ertman]

4 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Either I'm tired or I just read it's a constitutional right for a sex offender to harass potentially more victims online because free speech or something..please tell me I read that wrong.

 

Social media is a privilege, not a right. If you want to molest others, I want you dafuq away from cyberspace. If you're not molesty mcmolester pants, by all means go to tech forums or furry sites all you want!

I just don't see how they can't constitutionally protect the access while limiting it to others as they do with constitutional rights for sex offenders now.

[rn8686]

1 hour ago, Ertman said:

I just don't see how they can't constitutionally protect the access while limiting it to others as they do with constitutional rights for sex offenders now.

How would they? Next it could be twisted against activists (Unlikely, but still very possible). Are you saying that all sex offenders shouldn't have the right to use social media? It doesnt need to be a violent offence to get on the list. 

[Jito463]

On 6/26/2017 at 3:47 PM, tlink said:

in a way me killing someone can be seen as free speech, im expressing my opinion physically.

It's "Freedom of speech", not "Freedom of expression".  While speech is a form of expression, not all forms of expression are speech.

On 6/26/2017 at 3:41 PM, yathis said:

The sad sad fact is, Facebook and Google are the first to censor it. Very sad!!!!!!!!!

Next is Microsoft and everyone else falls in line.

There is a vast difference between companies censoring on their own platforms and governments censoring the people.

 

The former is acceptable, because it's a private company and you're being allowed the privilege of accessing it.  If you are blocked or if you disagree with their rules, use another service.  Government censorship, however, is unacceptable.

On 6/26/2017 at 3:49 PM, yathis said:

I dont use social media, I think its outright stupid.

I'm with you.  Forums are closest things to "social media" that I participate in.

20 hours ago, Mooshi said:

Either I'm tired or I just read it's a constitutional right for a sex offender to harass potentially more victims online because free speech or something..please tell me I read that wrong.

 

Social media is a privilege, not a right. If you want to molest others, I want you ..... away from cyberspace. If you're not molesty mcmolester pants, by all means go to tech forums or furry sites all you want!

That wasn't what they ruled, though.  If a sex offender (or any other creep/pervert) harasses or stalks someone online, they can still be in legal trouble.  What the SCOTUS ruled is that government cannot take away your ability to access these services.  The service providers (twitter, fakebook, etc) still have the right to ban anyone from their service at any time.

[yathis]

They want to advance their causes thats why they do it.

 

Look at a google search done on Hillary. It was obvious google favored Hillary over Trump. That shit should be illegal what google did/does.

[Lurick]

2 minutes ago, yathis said:

They want to advance their causes thats why they do it.

 

Look at a google search done on Hillary. It was obvious google favored Hillary over Trump. That shit should be illegal what google did/does.

So? Corporations are people and people have free speech, just like money is free speech.

[yathis]

Just now, Lurick said:

So? Corporations are people and people have free speech, just like money is free speech.

Huh?

Corporations can vote?

Wow!!! I never knew that.

[Eaglerino]

1 hour ago, yathis said:

They want to advance their causes thats why they do it.

 

Look at a google search done on Hillary. It was obvious google favored Hillary over Trump. That shit should be illegal what google did/does.

If America proved anything in 2016, its that Washington/big companies don't have the control they thought they did. I don't really care if companies support one or another, we have the choices to go somewhere else and hopefully we always live in a country that has enough decent competition where that's possible

 

Huh?

Corporations can vote?

Wow!!! I never knew that.

The CEO of Google can vote... yes..

[Yamoto42]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

The former is acceptable, because it's a private company and you're being allowed the privilege of accessing it.  If you are blocked or if you disagree with their rules, use another service.  Government censorship, however, is unacceptable.

This...how do people not understand this?

Private property 101, unless you're willing to admit that not allowing me to use your lawn for a rally supporting <insert political party you oppose here> is obstructing my freedom of speech.

 

1 hour ago, yathis said:

Huh?

Corporations can vote?

Wow!!! I never knew that.

No, but the people controlling it can.  The HUMANS who build and maintain it can alter their algorithms to promote whatever they choose, just as their shareholders are perfectly welcome to sell off their shares if they disagree and you are perfectly free to not use their services...

It isn't exactly rocket surgery.

[yathis]

Well corporations do influence politicians there no news there.

Koche Industries is the biggest one!

[Gravesnear]

On 6/26/2017 at 4:24 PM, Starelementpoke said:

I don't want to see my school arguing that they can be on their phones in class because it's a right.

Iirc minors don't have full exertion of their constitutional rights, which is why they are subject to curfews, barred from purchasing firearms, etc. I can't recall the legal precedent but I'm sure it could be googled.

[Ertman]

14 hours ago, rn8686 said:

How would they? Next it could be twisted against activists (Unlikely, but still very possible). Are you saying that all sex offenders shouldn't have the right to use social media? It doesnt need to be a violent offence to get on the list. 

There are ALREADY restrictions like that in place in the physical world applying the same or similar limitations to online is logical. 

[handymanshandle]

On 6/26/2017 at 3:28 PM, Tibbles said:

ok but I don't understand why anyone would give a fuck about social media in the first place

 

also social media is fake news :3c

_{furry shit and anime shit is fake news >:3}

 

I joke lol

But eh, I mean I'm fine with it. I use it time to time. It's nice for like when you want to connect to people that would be otherwise difficult to connect with. But even as an introvert, I don't recommend it replace irl interaction

[tlink]

10 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It's "Freedom of speech", not "Freedom of expression".  While speech is a form of expression, not all forms of expression are speech..

its not limited to speech. just because its called that doesn't mean that its an accurate name. we don't oppress mute people and written media under that same idea. speech is meant figurative for speaking out, not literally talking.

Quote

There is a vast difference between companies censoring on their own platforms and governments censoring the people

i never said otherwise

[Jito463]

34 minutes ago, tlink said:

its not limited to speech. just because its called that doesn't mean that its an accurate name. we don't oppress mute people and written media under that same idea. speech is meant figurative for speaking out, not literally talking.

I never said it was limited to strictly speaking, I said that phrase was "Freedom of speech", which it is.  Physical violence is not speech by any standard, however.  Which is why I corrected you that it was not "Freedom of expression", but rather was "Freedom of speech".

[tlink]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I never said it was limited to strictly speaking, I said that phrase was "Freedom of speech", which it is.  Physical violence is not speech by any standard, however.  Which is why I corrected him that it was not "Freedom of expression", but rather was "Freedom of speech".

but freedom of speech is interchangeable with freedom of expression in this case. because that is what it means when you involve, written expression, art, dance, music, etc etc etc. even DDOS is considered a freedom of speech in some country's. violence can be considered a form of expression, and thus something that could fall under freedom of 'speech'.

[Jito463]

19 minutes ago, tlink said:

violence can be considered a form of expression, and thus something that could fall under freedom of 'speech'.

Nope, sorry.  Not buying your argument.  It holds absolutely no water with me.  And good luck getting the local judge to accept it, after you pop someone in the mouth just to "express yourself".

[tlink]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Nope, sorry.  Not buying your argument.  It holds absolutely no water with me.  And good luck getting the local judge to accept it, after you pop someone in the mouth just to "express yourself".

you're completely misinterpreting my argument. it was my explanation for why there is no such thing as void of freedom of speech, not my explanation to why you can legally use violence.

[Guest]

On 6/27/2017 at 4:28 AM, Tibbles said:

also social media is fake news :3c

They should make it illegal to not be following @realDonaldTrump

[Guest]

On 6/27/2017 at 5:37 AM, PocketNerd said:

Anyway, I'm glad this is a thing. Anyone got any ideas about how this affects Trumps tweets?

Nothing affects him. He says what he wants. FAKE NEWS!

[Delicieuxz]

Freedom of Speech holds that the truth and a lie are equal, and so is a falsehood. A person has a right to express themselves, but they're responsible for how they choose to do so. Freedom of Expression entitles a person to express themselves, but also holds them responsible for how they choose to do so.

[Trik'Stari]

Considering this, does free speech now apply on Social Media?

 

Should Twitter be allowed to ban or shadow ban people who's only crime is having a differing opinion to those who run Twitter?

[Jito463]

13 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Considering this, does free speech now apply on Social Media?

 

Should Twitter be allowed to ban or shadow ban people who's only crime is having a differing opinion to those who run Twitter?

As I stated in my previous post, service providers (nitwitter/fakebook/et al) can still ban people from their service based on their license agreements that you accept when you create an account.  This ruling simply means the government cannot deny you access to these services, as they're now classified as "Freedom of speech".  According to the SCOTUS ruling, it would be no different than the government saying you weren't allowed to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper for publication.  SocMed is just faster and more likely to be published.