Should RHP ban for misinformation?

@vivify said
You're claiming lies are protected under freedom of speech; if lying was a constitutional right, it wouldn't be illegal to do so in court proceedings or legal documents, because your "right" to lie would be infringed. You also couldn't be sued for false advertising.

So you're wrong.

There are certain limitations on freedom of speech. Lying to police officers conducting investigations and perjury are crimes, of course. Commercial speech is also less protected than political speech and so false advertising laws are okay.

But the First Amendment does protect political speech "lies." If I get up on a soapbox in a public park and tell everyone that the Moon landing was a hoax, aliens in Mafia suits killed JFK and people go to Hooters for the food, I am absolutely protected by the First Amendment and the government cannot punish me.

@vivify said
Can I falsely yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater? Or is that "freedom of speech"?

Under the Brandenburg standard (from Brandenburg v. Ohio), incitement can be criminalized if it is intended to and likely to cause imminent lawless action. The "fire in a crowded theater" example was given by Justice OW Holmes, who applied the "clear and present danger" standard in Schenk v. US (this standard was partially reversed by Brandenburg, though the fire example would apply under that case as well).

It does not allow the government to criminalize run-of-the-mill false political speech.

@suzianne said
NOTHING you say is "helpful to Libs."

It is indeed helpful to libs. Like when we apprise you of the deteriorating mind of your president. Certainly that is helpful, esp when most libs don’t realize he is sick.

@sh76 said
There are certain limitations on freedom of speech. Lying to police officers conducting investigations and perjury are crimes, of course. Commercial speech is also less protected than political speech and so false advertising laws are okay.

But the First Amendment does protect political speech "lies." If I get up on a soapbox in a public park and tell everyone that the Moon l ...[text shortened]... for the food, I am absolutely protected by the First Amendment and the government cannot punish me.

Great example. Flush out these libs!!!!!

@sh76 said
There are certain limitations on freedom of speech. Lying to police officers conducting investigations and perjury are crimes, of course. Commercial speech is also less protected than political speech and so false advertising laws are okay.

But the First Amendment does protect political speech "lies." If I get up on a soapbox in a public park and tell everyone that the Moon l ...[text shortened]... for the food, I am absolutely protected by the First Amendment and the government cannot punish me.

No one is saying lying in of itself falls outside of free speech. The point was that there is a limit to what can be lied about, if it can endanger others.

This is all meaningless anyway, since Twitter bans are not infringements on free speech. Conservatives on this site don't seem to understand that "free speech" means that government can't punish free expression of ideas that don't endanger or slander anyone. Twitter is not the government.

@vivify said
No one is saying lying in of itself falls outside of free speech. The point was that there is a limit to what can be lied about, if it can endanger others.

This is all meaningless anyway, since Twitter bans are not infringements on free speech. Conservatives on this site don't seem to understand that "free speech" means that government can't punish free expression of ideas that don't endanger or slander anyone. Twitter is not the government.

While it's of course true that Twitter is not a government actor and not subject to the First Amendment, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes the issue a little murky.

Essentially, section 230 gives a platform provider immunity from defamation (and other) lawsuits based on content posted by other people on the platform.

Of course, the law is important, as otherwise social media platforms would be sued all the time for crap people post on it.

Still, if a platform is going to get government protection on the theory that it's not providing content, a strong argument can be made that, at least, it ought to be viewpoint neutral. If it exercises editorial discretion over everything posted on the site based on its own whims and opinions, it becomes more of a publisher than a platform.

@averagejoe1 said
Hitler wasn’t comfortable with ‘Jude’ shops either, so he closed them down
In Vivify’s words, ‘permanently banned’, Brrrrrrrrr
Can libs use phrases like personal responsibility, self reliance, independence, autonomy, self direction in posting.? It would make things easier for conservatives to relate to.

Yeah, personal responsibility,
I'll go for that myself.
So, you must have been troubled
when TRUMP pardoned all those
people that were charged with crimes.
RIGHT?

@sh76 said
While it's of course true that Twitter is not a government actor and not subject to the First Amendment, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes the issue a little murky.

Essentially, section 230 gives a platform provider immunity from defamation (and other) lawsuits based on content posted by other people on the platform.

Of course, the law is important, as ot ...[text shortened]... ted on the site based on its own whims and opinions, it becomes more of a publisher than a platform.

Still, if a platform is going to get government protection on the theory that it's not providing content, a strong argument can be made that, at least, it ought to be viewpoint neutral. If it exercises editorial discretion over everything posted on the site based on its own whims and opinions, it becomes more of a publisher than a platform.

A nicely articulated argument.

However, I don't think these are two sides of a 'free speech' coin. Not all platforms can meet your 'viewpoint neutral' standard (whatever that may be) . You are essentially suggesting we divide up content providers into boxes which are 'biased' and 'neutral' . The biased ones would be open to legal defamation claims and personal injury lawsuits (think 'cyberbullying' ) but the 'neutral' ones would have immunity from this. What about lawsuits against 'biased' content providers in which the content itself was politically neutral? What about personally-tailored curating algorithms? Would those have to be neutral too? I think that's going to be a garbage dump of chaos compared to current systems in which curated content comes at the providers' discretion.

Moreover, if a content provider chooses to be 'viewpoint neutral', who would decide if it was meeting that legal definition? Who would decide if their content policy was or was not based on 'whim' and 'opinion'. The government? Uh oh.

@wildgrass said

Still, if a platform is going to get government protection on the theory that it's not providing content, a strong argument can be made that, at least, it ought to be viewpoint neutral. If it exercises editorial discretion over everything posted on the site based on its own whims and opinions, it becomes more of a publisher than a platform.

A nicely articula ...[text shortened]... decide if their content policy was or was not based on 'whim' and 'opinion'. The government? Uh oh.

Who would decide, indeed. Vivify, what would be your response to this question?

@sh76 said
But the First Amendment does protect political speech "lies." If I get up on a soapbox in a public park and tell everyone that the Moon landing was a hoax, aliens in Mafia suits killed JFK and people go to Hooters for the food, I am absolutely protected by the First Amendment and the government cannot punish me.

The government cannot punish you. The owner of either the land or the soapbox very much can.

So yes, both Twitter and RHP are allowed to block you, even in the libertariard-riddled USA. Whether it would be worth their while is another question, but they definitively are allowed to, even in the Land Of The Free To Incite To Murder.

@averagejoe1 said
Who would decide, indeed. Vivify, what would be your response to this question?

Joe, to be clear, vivify was not arguing that content providers should be 'viewpoint neutral' to avoid lawsuits based on content. That was sh76. Currently we have no standard to determine this, and I think it's practically impossible.

@averagejoe1 said
It is indeed helpful to libs. Like when we apprise you of the deteriorating mind of your president. Certainly that is helpful, esp when most libs don’t realize he is sick.

...says the yawlyawlfolk who worships the little-hands who needed to be helped down a stairs by the nonagenerian queen of England.

@vivify said
If they don't, they should. Marjorie Taylor Green was permanently banned from Twitter for misinformation.

There's a certain inutile poster on this site who should get the same treatment.

I would like to see less
bogus news sites----
you know who you are.
Practically speaking, I don't
see any way that RHP could
monitor content short of,
shutting down 'FORUMS.'

@wildgrass said

Still, if a platform is going to get government protection on the theory that it's not providing content, a strong argument can be made that, at least, it ought to be viewpoint neutral. If it exercises editorial discretion over everything posted on the site based on its own whims and opinions, it becomes more of a publisher than a platform.

A nicely articula ...[text shortened]... decide if their content policy was or was not based on 'whim' and 'opinion'. The government? Uh oh.

Well, you already have that dichotomy anyway.

The New York Times can be sued for articles written on its Op-Ed page, even if the author is Tom Cotton or Pol Pot or someone like that* because it's a publisher, not a platform.

You have to draw the line somewhere anyway. I'm just suggesting one place.

As for who determines which side of the line a particular provider falls on, presumably, the courts (or juries, in arguable cases) would have to do that on a lawsuit-by-lawsuit basis.








* Relax, I'm just messing

@sh76 said
Still, if a platform is going to get government protection on the theory that it's not providing content, a strong argument can be made that, at least, it ought to be viewpoint neutral. If it exercises editorial discretion over everything posted on the site based on its own whims and opinions, it becomes more of a publisher than a platform.

This is simply exercising control over your own establishment.

If someone walks into a coffee shop spouting racist rhetoric, the shop owner is not violating free speech rights by kicking the racist out of the store. Same for Russ if he decides to ban such a person from RHP, and same for Twitter.