Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech. Can't make people listen to your speech. There's no protection against civil (ie, non governmental) action against your speech. You want freedom, host it your self and be prepared to accept the consequences and gains.
Go to Speakers Corner and have a go. Put up a website. Buy a TV/Radio station, or Internet provider.
Twitter became de-facto a part of public square. Especially since appointed and elected officials started using for official and non-official communicate. The US court of appeals said it pretty clearly here: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/4th-circui...
Censoring individual twits is one thing, but banning entire account is a different thing, because now it restricts your ability to interact with elected officials.
Besides, equal time rule demands that TV and radio stations(private and public) give equal time to competing politicians. There are exceptions, but logically it should extend to social media and video hosting sites, because they are today’s version of radio and TV stations.
On top of that, I would argue social media became the only mean of public assembly, which is a protected right, during Covid lockdown. Politicians pay attention to twitter, you can’t assemble by the city hall with banners to express your opinion, because you are to stay home. The next closest thing is to swarm twitter and facebook, given how closely they watch trends there.
As a counterpoint, even in the public square, not all types of speech are allowed. For a frivolous example, many cities have noise ordinances and laws against breaking the public peace. So you get tossed in jail for a night for being a public nuisance.
We treat Twitter and Internet forums less seriously, as if someone can say whatever the fuck they want with no consequences at all. That’s not how it works in the public square, so why should it be that way on Twitter?
> That’s not how it works in the public square, so why should it be that way on Twitter?
No one seriously suggests that all types of speech are allowed. Malevolently shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech.
Noise ordinance have fairly limited scope and in virtual scope is actually fairly easy to deal with. I don't care what Kanye West things and I don't subscribe to him. As for disorderly conduct, it is such a wide net of laws, that it can range from misdemeanor like making loud noises to criminalizing homelessness or some other biased laws, I don't think that even make sense to apply this logic to the virtual space.
>Can't make private individuals or companies host your speech.
There is no fundamental reason this is an unchangeable true. A lot of the noise around Section 230 repeal and other laws being passed in places like Texas are designed to alter exactly this norm.
Personally I am not sure if I would change it or not, I am just pointing out that it is far from written in stone...
They can try to disincentivize private censorship, but unlikely to stop it. I believe the primary argument is forcing these companies to publish speech is a violation of their own free speech.
Right now section 230 means you can censor without censoring perfectly and not get sued. Repealing it means Facebook are liable for anything posted there IF the censor at all. So Facebook either gives up all censorship (free speech!), or gives up all user driven content (unlikely).
That's just civil law, the constitutional right to free speech doesn't cover getting sued for it. Even if it does apply to corporations right to censor...
I'm pretty sure repealing section 230 would mean companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms. I would expect censorship/moderation to reach broadcast TV levels in that case.
> At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:
>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
There are 2 sections we care about. The first (203(c)1) defines platforms as not being publishers so they're not liable (civilly) for content. That means they don't HAVE to moderate.
But that leaves a problem. As soon as you start moderating, you become a publisher whether you like it or now.
So there is ALSO 230(c)2
>Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
That lets platforms moderate and censor if they want to AND STILL NOT GET SUED when their moderation is not perfect.
Platforms probably have c1 rights anyway, courts ruled on that before 230 was enacted (section 230 is the remains of a bigger law that was ruled unconstitutional because it didn't respect the free press aspects enough)
So without section 230, platforms have 2 options: no moderation OR moderate but eat a tonne of liability.
Section 230 let's them have the best of both worlds: remove things AND don't be held responsible for things you didn't remove.
I should have been clearer that it was c2 that I was referring to.
If c2 were repealed, most platforms would have to stop all moderation. HN would be gone as we know it.
Messy enough?
In theory we could repeal the whole thing, but that has much the same effect as just repealing c2: companies close their user created content or get sued into oblivion by any lawsuit happy citizen.
You can see how this turns into political talking points and mis understandings very easily about how section 230 is both critical the free speech and against free speech and stops companies and enables them depending on the agenda of the speaker...
Edit: I previously referred to Texas (re: the comment about laws being passed there, which I think refer to those to restrict de-platforming). What I meant with this comment was more like "if a state passes a law like Texas, it might be easier not to do business there than to comply," which obviously wouldn't work if section 230 was defanged or repealed. I don't think that would ever happen, but who knows.
Yea, I edited my comment, I was talking more about those states which make their own laws which would affect a platform. One of the up-comments in this chain referred to that Texas law that I think is supposed to prevent de-platforming. Section 230 would certainly have widespread effects.
I think you're right. Basically no user content platform that isn't (heavily) privately subsidised could survive without sec 230. Facebook would either need to charge hundreds of dollars a month per user or close accounts.
I think one of the things that limits our society is that we need complex laws (sec 230 is very misunderstood, the same is true of financial regulation though) AND laws have to be simple enough that voters cannot be misled over what they do. That's a very tight constraint, sort of like building the Apollo project but only 10 year olds are allowed to work on it...
Or you can do it the old fashion way. When I was in undergrad, anti abortion people showing graphic imagery and religious fanatics would use the fact that the main quad was a public space to stump their opinions. Most people would ignore them, others would stop to argue with them, but the cops never did anything because legally they could not remove them from a public space for speaking.
That happened at my school, too. There was one guy, little bald and always wearing a slightly too big suit, yelling about gays and the immorality of anal sex. Something tells me he fueled more experimentation than if he hadn't been there.
"If that killjoy doesn't like something it must be fun!"
Go to Speakers Corner and have a go. Put up a website. Buy a TV/Radio station, or Internet provider.