| |

Linked: Supreme Court Signals Loud And Clear That Social Media Sites Are Not Public Forums That Have To Allow All Speech

I’m not a lawyer.

However, I’d agree with this assessment of the First Amendment, social media platforms are actually free to censor as much, as little, and with as much bias as they want, and this latest ruling on a public access cable station seems to confirm that.

“So, uh, yeah. If you’re arguing that private platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are magically “public fora” even as the Supreme Court is rejecting that designation for a public access channel that was literally created by the state, suffice it to say that you’re argument is not going to go very far.”

So we know that social media platforms are not public forums. What about the internet as a whole? Again, if an actual lawyer wants to chime in here, it’s more than welcome, but I do think the internet itself could be considered a public forum. Where censorship would be a no-no, at least by the American government.

On the other hand, your access to the internet, and ability to publish anything on the internet is mostly only possible thanks to ISPs, hosting providers and domain registrars.

They are private companies, free to do business with whomever they want.

So, in effect, the internet then is not a public forum for free speech is it? But if it should be, how do we effectively provide that for millions of people in the U.S.?


Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.