ACLU warns against social media blocking/banning

[Tradd]

Swore I was going to stop with the politics stuff, but this was too danged interesting to not post.

https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counse...r_ZXD2bf5k2kHw

[GeorgeParker]

There are no simple solutions, only intelligent choices.

Sometimes the right of "Free Speech" needs to be curtailed for public safety or to protect a higher good. But doing so, and knowing when to stop, is always difficult and dangerous in both directions.

Some things are so dangerous they need to always carry a warning label. Some things are so dangerous they have to be prohibited. The classic example is no one has the right to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or call in a false bomb threat. But where do you draw the line and who, exactly, draws it?

There are no simple solutions, only intelligent choices.

Let us pray the people with the power to make those choices are intelligent enough.

[jp1]

JP Shrugs shoulders. Trump has been over the top for months/years. He would have been banned from everything months/years ago were he not the most powerful dude in the world. It’s only now that he obviously needs to be strapped up with duct tape and stored away in a basement that we’re even talking about this.

[jp1]

Dude would have been blocked years ago if he were anyone else. Eff him.

[frugal-one]

Watch "Social Dilemma" on Netflix... interprets what is transpiring.

[Tybee]

It's funny, Tradd, I read the title as being ACLU warning against blocking other people, like we do here, not Twitter banning anyone, and then I read the artdicle.

[ToomuchStuff]

There is an old adage, Freedom of speech/freedom of the press, as long as you own the press.

[razz]

TMS has it right according to this article. Twitter et al are private companies and when you and everyone else signs up you agree to abide by their policies.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...speech-at-risk

"Really, there are three related but distinct sets of events that occurred. The first is the de-platforming of President Donald Trump from Twitter, Facebook, and other sites. The second is social media’s mass banning of QAnon and Capitol-assault-related accounts and media. The third is the at least temporary collapse of Parler, a right-wing Twitter clone that promised to be a haven for free speech. They should be treated separately.

Let’s start with Mr. Trump and his social media accounts, particularly Twitter, on which he was followed by 88 million people. In the aftermath of the Capitol invasion, a federal crime that resulted in five deaths, Mr. Trump and his team continued to post material that could be interpreted to endorse the riots. Facebook, Twitter, and other major social media companies viewed this as a violation of their terms of use – the rules under which users agree to use the companies’ services – and deactivated Mr. Trump’s accounts.

Isn’t that an unconstitutional violation of the president’s First Amendment rights?
No. The First Amendment is specifically about the limits of what the government can do to regulate speech. Twitter is a private company, and is entitled to restrict its services to customers however it wants (subject to certain federal laws)...

It is tempting to think of Twitter, and the internet generally, as the modern version of the town square. Many have made that analogy. But social media companies are corporations. So rather than a public town square, Twitter is a privately owned stadium where the Twitter corporation has built the facilities, hired the security, and handed out megaphones to everyone walking in the doors. They don’t charge admission, but it’s their property, and so they can let in – and kick out – whomever they want.

But aren’t they gagging the president by cutting him off from one of the world’s biggest social media platforms?
No. The president has unrivaled access to the media. Every broadcaster on the planet would leap at the chance to interview him. He has regularly called into programs on Fox News to chat live. And he has a White House press office with a press corps dedicated to reporting whatever he might say.

That’s not the same as Twitter. The press can filter him; on social media, Trump can say exactly what he wants.
That’s true. And the White House has a public website that could publish Mr. Trump’s words unfiltered. Mr. Trump has options – more than almost anyone else on the planet – to get his message out."

[CathyA]

I guess initially I may have thought the ACLU was good to have around. But we in the U.S. have become so accustomed (and encouraged) to think our own individual rights are always more important than the good of the whole, that the whole now is sinking.
As has been said, it's a very fine line, that I'm not sure is able to be kept, unfortunately. But in today's U.S., I would gladly give up some rights, if it made our country healthier and less crazy. We are the "ME" country and now we're paying our dues..........