The Supreme Court is about to decide the future of online speech

Post by thegrim33 » Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 5:58 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #7

Spivak wrote: post #2

This is gonna be a weird ruling if it goes in favor of the states. If you run a public bulletin board tearing down fliers is absolutely a form of speech, and if you do it to people you disagree with it becomes political speech. I can't imagine even this court ruling that the government is allowed to regulate political speech. That would kick the door open to an easily constitutional broadly applied national hate spee…

> If you run a public bulletin board tearing down fliers is absolutely a form of speech I'd say where the protection starts is that the board is yours. You can make it as open or restricted or curated or nonsensical as you wish. Other individuals can put up their own boards and they can display whatever they wish. This is what the 1A protects. In a reality where an opinion can be displayed from millions of boards - I…

Post by barbacoa » Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 6:02 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #7

Spivak wrote: post #2

This is gonna be a weird ruling if it goes in favor of the states. If you run a public bulletin board tearing down fliers is absolutely a form of speech, and if you do it to people you disagree with it becomes political speech. I can't imagine even this court ruling that the government is allowed to regulate political speech. That would kick the door open to an easily constitutional broadly applied national hate spee…

> If you run a public bulletin board tearing down fliers is absolutely a form of speech I'd say where the protection starts is that the board is yours. You can make it as open or restricted or curated or nonsensical as you wish. Other individuals can put up their own boards and they can display whatever they wish. This is what the 1A protects. In a reality where an opinion can be displayed from millions of boards - I…

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 6:19 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #9

hellojesus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law really should make it clear that, illegal activity excluded, if you engage in any form of censorship you are not given section 230 protections. Say I run a forum for pet fish discussion. Would my removal of content derailing the discussion into a flatearther one constitute my loss of 230? What if only logged in members can see the content? It seems odd that we don't let private property operate as it wants.

Have a scale or a topic carveout. Your pet fish message board doesn't have the same social relevance as the twitters and facebooks of the world that are intended to be generic communications platforms. Despite what people like to claim, these sites are de facto public squares and should be treated as such. It's clear people resist this idea because they like the fact that these companies censor speech in the directio…

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 6:20 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #10

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you engage in any form of censorship you are not given section 230 protections. I disagree that governments should punish people who fail to amplify the messages of powerful political parties.

Selective amplification is editorialization when the decisions are content sensitive. It being algorithmic doesn't change the substance of this.

Post by tengbretson » Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 6:41 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #5

Ordering people to say things the government likes is compelled speech. The First Amendment broadly prohibits it and that broadly benefits us . It's in our interest to safeguard and preserve rights that protect our speech.