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

[PocketNerd]

On 6/28/2017 at 5:44 PM, 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?

Technically speaking, free speech already applied to Social Media. However, since it needs to continually be hammered into people's heads. FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EQUATE TO FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCES.

All it means is that you can't be put in jail, which is why things like "Pleading the 5th" are a thing.

[DeScruff]

On 6/26/2017 at 4:28 PM, Tibbles said:

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

Because the term "Social Media" is extremely broad. Probably more broad in a legal sense.
Webster Dictionary: " forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos) "

This forum, could be considered Social Media. Youtube would be considered Social Media.
Any website you can leave a comment can be considered Social Media.
I wouldn't doubt by some person's crazy logic, they could argue in a legal sense that Ebay, or Amazon (or any online shopping) are Social Media. (Specially if $ = Speech)

You'd probably have an easier time navigating the web at my highschool, (which blocked practically everything) then with a zero tolerance policy against websites that can be considered "Social Media"
 

On 6/28/2017 at 8:44 PM, 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?

Free speech is a You vs Gov thing, not you vs another private entity... - For some reason I kinda expected you to know that...
You start a verbal ruckus at a bar, the bartender can kick you out. Same thing applies here.

In a certain sense for most websites: By default, nobody is allowed to use certain parts of a website (like say a comment section). However by signing up for the site you virtually sign a contract that gives you permission to use those parts of a website. By breaking that contract, you are put back into the default "Nobody" section, or to a section that you agreed to be put into when you agreed to the TOS.
- I'm not a lawyer, but Ive been told that is kinda how its viewed in laymans terms... I'm sure there are more complexities then that.

[Trik'Stari]

18 minutes ago, Sypran said:

Free speech is a You vs Gov thing, not you vs another private entity... - For some reason I kinda expected you to know that...
You start a verbal ruckus at a bar, the bartender can kick you out. Same thing applies here.

In a certain sense for most websites: By default, nobody is allowed to use certain parts of a website (like say a comment section). However by signing up for the site you virtually sign a contract that gives you permission to use those parts of a website. By breaking that contract, you are put back into the default "Nobody" section, or to a section that you agreed to be put into when you agreed to the TOS.
- I'm not a lawyer, but Ive been told that is kinda how its viewed in laymans terms... I'm sure there are more complexities then that.

I'm not a lawyer either, that's why I asked.

 

I also asked for peoples opinions. Personally I think free speech should apply to everyone and anyone. Including businesses, especially social media businesses.

 

Why? Because you put yourself and your business out there for people to use publicly. Social media is very, very definitely "public space". However, that being said, I think people should have a right to mute others (ignore, whatever you want to call it. You click a button and no longer see them), as you have the right to ignore assholes in physical public space.

 

Of course many will disagree with me, and make good arguments for that. As they are free to do.

[Unclescar]

something being a "right" simply means the government cannot take it away from you or prevent you from having it.
It does not have to provide it for you, nor give you the means to get it, and it's use is not necessarily anytime anywhere (ie, guns, and the "gun free zones") it's still your responsibility to cover those yourself, but the Govt can't say "No, ___, You can't have social media."

[shockpaw123]

rip sjw's that have to resort to censorship 

[BuckGup]

So if it's a right then does an ISP HAVE to provide internet to someone who they have denied because it's their right?

[Jito463]

6 hours ago, BuckGup said:

So if it's a right then does an ISP HAVE to provide internet to someone who they have denied because it's their right?

Once again, their use of the term "right" simply means it's Constitutionally protected so the government can't take it away from you.

 

Let's assume for the moment that this forum was US based, just for sake of an analogy.  The right to free speech means that the government cannot restrict your freedom to say whatever you choose.  It does not mean that you cannot be held liable for the results of what you say.  If I were to post that @leadeater liked to dress up in tutu's and dance like a ballerina, for example, the government could not stop me from saying so.  But that doesn't mean I couldn't get kicked from the forums or face some other legal challenges (please don't ban me ).

 

People (even those here in the US) really don't understand what a "right" actually is anymore.  When our Bill of Rights says that we have a right, it's not something that the government grants to us, it's recognizing that we are endowed with those rights as human beings and that the government is not allowed to take it away.  We can still be held responsible for how we choose to act on those rights.

[mr moose]

@LAwLz  This is what I was referring to in the other thread,  The topic of free speech is a golden example,  here we have people arguing that sex offenders should not be banned from social media for fear that the government will use said same law (the one that takes away the privileges of a convicted sex offender) to ban dissonant political views.  That is absolute black and white thinking in my book.  It is like the marijuana is a gateway drug argument against governments and law makers.   There is no logical reason to assume a government would use criminal punishment as precedent for censorship/removal of free speech.  Yet that is what some people end up debating. 

 

That other thread was refreshing to read.  This on the other hand....

 

 

On 6/27/2017 at 11:00 AM, ONOTech said:

Considering social media acts as a medium for speech, they'll probably need to change the rules because it's difficult to ascertain whether certain speech poses clear and present danger online. I think that's one of the biggest issues here.

there are certain people that present a clear danger on social media: Alex jones, david wolfe, sheree tenpenny et al.

 

They need to be forced to take a course in medical science, or at the very least be shown what happens when you defraud a whole heap of desperate sick people into avoiding doctors and buying herbal supplements.

 

[Prysin]

On 2017-6-26 at 10:24 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.

It is their right. But it is their duty to educate themselves.

 

Interestingly enough, i think that for students who "willfully waste opportunity" in publically funded education systems should be held liable to the debt they have placed on society as a whole. Note, this opinion only applies to publically education systems forcibly funded through the power of the government.

 

Aka, for those who dont understand how it works in real life.

You work. In the private sector, aka you create value. Governments cannot create value, only redistribute it. This is a basic fact.

Government says "you shall pay X% in taxes"

You know that student A is going to flunk out, and says "nu-uh"

Government says "you shall pay X% in taxes, or else"

You still say "nu-uh"

Government points gun at your head, and says "you SHALL pay X% in taxes, or ill shoot"

You decide that paying X% in taxes is not worth risking your life over. Thus you pay X% in taxes, against your will.

Student A spends time on Facebook, drops out, despite several attempts by the faculty to help the student. Thus student A has wasted many many thousand dollars in school funding who, oh whom you paid a % of.

It is unrealistic for the government to track how much YOU paid to that students education, so the bill has to be towards the general society.

Aka student A, has to pay 2x back on his or her student debt due to deliberately wasting state funds 

 

[Prysin]

7 hours ago, BuckGup said:

So if it's a right then does an ISP HAVE to provide internet to someone who they have denied because it's their right?

There is a difference between being banned from ALL ISPs, and ONE ISP.

 

Sure, there IS monopoly among ISPs, but you can still get internet through LTE modems, sattelite etc... Just depends how much you are willing to pay.

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

If I were to post that @leadeater liked to dress up in tutu's and dance like a ballerina, for example, the government could not stop me from saying so.  But that doesn't mean I couldn't get kicked from the forums or face some other legal challenges (please don't ban me ).

Yea but that is true so no real chance of being kicked out for that 

 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

@leadeater

 

People (even those here in the US) really don't understand what a "right" actually is anymore.  When our Bill of Rights says that we have a right, it's not something that the government grants to us, it's recognizing that we are endowed with those rights as human beings and that the government is not allowed to take it away.  We can still be held responsible for how we choose to act on those rights.

 

We don't have those rights in Australia, which in some ways is good, becasue we haven't gotten to the stage where we are confusing having the right to free speech with not having to be accountable for what you say.    Which to me does seem to be the case for some people. 

[Jito463]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

We don't have those rights in Australia, which in some ways is good, becasue we haven't gotten to the stage where we are confusing having the right to free speech with not having to be accountable for what you say.    Which to me does seem to be the case for some people. 

The problem stems not from having those rights, but from a school system and media that actively teach people incorrect assumptions about said rights.  Along with politicians who further propagate those misconceptions.

[ravi_gupta]

Access to social media, making it a constitutional right is one good thing but for the people who don't understand the content and their effects of comments and all other online social activity, this could become an excuse to gain the access for most of people.

I hope someone is understanding my words.

Thanks in advance.

Ravi(email-support)

[Trik'Stari]

On 6/28/2017 at 5:24 AM, Delicieuxz said:

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.

I agree, although I disagree at the same time on what those acceptable consequences should be.

 

I think the harshest consequence for bad free speech (examples: The KKK, SJW's, which are basically two sides of the same extremely f**ked up coin) should be mockery or simply being ignored by everyone. When you move to banning them from speaking, you're actually giving them some power as they can claim that they are being persecuted for their beliefs (even if that belief is to persecute anyone and everyone who isn't or is white, or just generally disagrees with them on anything). Any form of official action can in the minds of some, make you (the social media company) look like the bad guy. When you could just do nothing, and let the public take care of things for you.

 

Point, laugh, call them an idiot, and move on with your day, instead of feeding the trolls.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I agree, although I disagree at the same time on what those acceptable consequences should be.

 

I think the harshest consequence for bad free speech (examples: The KKK, SJW's, which are basically two sides of the same extremely f**ked up coin) should be mockery or simply being ignored by everyone. When you move to banning them from speaking, you're actually giving them some power as they can claim that they are being persecuted for their beliefs (even if that belief is to persecute anyone and everyone who isn't or is white, or just generally disagrees with them on anything). Any form of official action can in the minds of some, make you (the social media company) look like the bad guy. When you could just do nothing, and let the public take care of things for you.

 

Point, laugh, call them an idiot, and move on with your day, instead of feeding the trolls.

What if there activities on social media (which are protected as free speech), are actually damaging, I.E professional con artists who setup web pages and fake science reports to convince people to avoid doctors and buy their supplements instead.   I get that you can't protect the dumb from themselves, but we are not talking about simpletons here being hoodwinked into dangerous medical advice but most of the average population as well.    A professional con artists can convince even the most intelligent of people to buy into their illusion.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

What if there activities on social media (which are protected as free speech), are actually damaging, I.E professional con artists who setup web pages and fake science reports to convince people to avoid doctors and buy their supplements instead.   I get that you can't protect the dumb from themselves, but we are not talking about simpletons here being hoodwinked into dangerous medical advice but most of the average population as well.    A professional con artists can convince even the most intelligent of people to buy into their illusion.

What if someone decides to use their car to plow through a marathon?

 

Conning people is already a crime, and it still happens. And you can't assume guilt. Because if you do, by the time you are done you'll end up with everyone being a legal prisoner of the state because you have to assume malicious intent on the part of everyone. (not to mention that the actual media doesn't go to jail for fraud when they print flat out lies just for ratings. So that precedent is already set)

 

That being said. If you wanted to come up with a standardized method of reporting fraud to law enforcement electronically, and force companies to implement it as a feature on their platforms, (which, in the end, will require harsh punishments for abuse or misuse.) that would be another story

 

Although the problem with that would end up being a loss of anonymity as law enforcement demands that everyone have an Internet ID, so they can more easily catch said con artists.

 

Which may or may not be in their jurisdiction.....or hemisphere.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

What if someone decides to use their car to plow through a marathon?

 

Conning people is already a crime, and it still happens. And you can't assume guilt. Because if you do, by the time you are done you'll end up with everyone being a legal prisoner of the state because you have to assume malicious intent on the part of everyone. (not to mention that the actual media doesn't go to jail for fraud when they print flat out lies just for ratings. So that precedent is already set)

 

That being said. If you wanted to come up with a standardized method of reporting fraud to law enforcement electronically, and force companies to implement it as a feature on their platforms, (which, in the end, will require harsh punishments for abuse or misuse.) that would be another story

 

Although the problem with that would end up being a loss of anonymity as law enforcement demands that everyone have an Internet ID, so they can more easily catch said con artists.

 

Which may or may not be in their jurisdiction.....or hemisphere.

Anonymity is not an issue, these guys are public figures, the problem is they are not being charged with fraud (even though it clearly is) because they are hiding behind freedom of speech laws.  There is evidence what Dr OZ sells doesn't work, it is black and white that his claims are misleading, but the only way to charge him is to ignore his right to champion his audiences beliefs. 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dr-oz-admits-‘miracle’-diet-products-he-advocates-are-pseudoscience/

 

Freedom of speech laws are great for defending the rights of citizens to criticize governments, but they are shit for giving con artists a loophole.

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Anonymity is not an issue, these guys are public figures, the problem is they are not being charged with fraud (even though it clearly is) because they are hiding behind freedom of speech laws.  There is evidence what Dr OZ sells doesn't work, it is black and white that his claims are misleading, but the only way to charge him is to ignore his right to champion his audiences beliefs. 

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dr-oz-admits-‘miracle’-diet-products-he-advocates-are-pseudoscience/

 

Freedom of speech laws are great for defending the rights of citizens to criticize governments, but they are shit for giving con artists a loophole.

True.

 

I would also point out that you could argue that religions are guilty of the same crime, but that's just me.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

True.

 

I would also point out that you could argue that religions are guilty of the same crime, but that's just me.

 

When they tell people not to go to the doctor and preach hands on healing only, then absolutely I agree.