Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:12 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 22,903
Jared Taylor v. Twitter (1st Amendment case)

Today San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn ruled in Jared Taylor’s favor during a hearing Thursday on Twitter’s request to dismiss. Dismiss what, many are asking?
Quote:
a lawsuit that accuses Twitter of violating the free speech rights of a leading white nationalist figure by banning his social media account.


I know, I was too. Keep reading:
Quote:
The judge described Taylor’s case as a “classic public interest lawsuit” and said it “goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution,” according to a transcript of the hearing.

“Now, it may be speech that you and I don’t wish to enjoy, but that’s not germane to the determination of whether it’s public interest. Public interest doesn’t have a flavor of ideology to it; public interest is whether it benefits the public,” Kahn said.
What in the ever-loving...?
Quote:
Company attorney Patrick Carome argued that platforms like Twitter have a First Amendment editorial right to choose what kind of content to distribute.

“And a book store, or a newspaper editor, or a cable platform has a First Amendment right to make good, bad, horrible decisions about who and who does not get to speak on its platform and what content does and does not get to be on its platform,” he said.

The judge asked Carome if he was arguing Twitter has an “absolute First Amendment right” to remove anybody from its platform, including on the basis of their religion or gender.

“Twitter doesn’t do that,” Carome responded, “but that is what the First Amendment guarantees to First Amendment actors.”
I agree with Mr. Carome and think it's weird that he'd have to explain that to a SC Judge, but I'm not an official law-talking guy so maybe it's not that weird. But the argument put forth by Mr. Taylor's law-talking guys also seems weird to me:
Quote:
Taylor’s lawyers argue access to Twitter is “essential for meaningful participation in modern-day American democracy.”

“At all times, Mr. Taylor has expressed his views with respect and civility,” they wrote in a court filing. “At no time did Mr. Taylor or American Renaissance engage in insults, threats, or harassment, nor did they ever encourage anyone else to engage in such activity.”
Quote:
Taylor’s attorneys said the new policy against affiliations with violent extremist groups is “overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory.”
Judge Kahn at least thinks this is a legitimate enough argument for the court proceedings to continue, but I'll be ddamned if I can figure out why this wasn't immediately tossed out of court; it seems completely unreasonable.
  #2  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:44 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
It's America. In America everybody demands the right to hurt his neighbours because rights.
  #3  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:16 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn't and couldn't exist. They should not be allowed to censor.
  #4  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:35 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn't and couldn't exist. They should not be allowed to censor.
Care to try the same logic on this board, which uses the same resources?

Example: I was warned here once for insulting someone directly. The moderator was right, I was wrong.

Last edited by DavidwithanR; 06-15-2018 at 08:39 PM.
  #5  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:38 PM
Channing Idaho Banks Channing Idaho Banks is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: beautiful Idaho
Posts: 2,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn't and couldn't exist. They should not be allowed to censor.

The government is not censoring Twitter, they're censoring their own platform, which they are responsible for.
  #6  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:56 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
I can't see this as a free speech issue at all.

Twitter is a private company and can censor anyone they feel like for any reason whatsoever.

I guarantee you if I go on some places like /r/The_Donald on Reddit and say anything remotely liberal they will ban me in a heartbeat. And that's fine as far as the law goes and I will not be suing them over it.

This is no different.

I am amazed this judge is so far off base (unless I am missing something). This is high school level civics stuff.
  #7  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:57 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Care to try the same logic on this board, which uses the same resources?

Example: I was warned here once for insulting someone directly. The moderator was right, I was wrong.
That is not a matter of public interest. Rules and your agreement to abide by them is not censorship.
  #8  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:58 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing Idaho Banks View Post

The government is not censoring Twitter, they're censoring their own platform, which they are responsible for.
They exist because the government enables them. It is in the public interest to prevent censorship by those using public resources.
  #9  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:05 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
They exist because the government enables them. It is in the public interest to prevent censorship by those using public resources.
What public resources are they using?
  #10  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:17 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
What public resources are they using?
..

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter operates on a public resources, the internet and the airwaves. Without that it wouldn't and couldn't exist. They should not be allowed to censor.
  #11  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:26 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
That is not a matter of public interest. Rules and your agreement to abide by them is not censorship.
Twitter has rules too. Zero difference.
  #12  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:30 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
..
You quoted your own post as a cite?

The airwaves they are using are owned by Verizon and AT&T and Sprint and so on who purchased the spectrum from the government for cell phone use.

You and I pay our cell providers for use of those airwaves.

They are not broadcasters and we do not get the signals for free like broadcast TV so they are not regulated.

The internet is also not a public resource. It is all privately owned and we pay for its use. Same as cable TV (which is why cable TV is able to offer nudity and violence and whatnot that broadcast TV cannot).

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-15-2018 at 09:31 PM.
  #13  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:34 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Twitter has rules too. Zero difference.
Twitter is a communication system provider, the Dope is not. The situation is the equivalent of an ISP not allowing the Dope to operate because they don't like what Cecil, or Ed, or you or I believe in even though the Dope has not violated any rules of the internet.
  #14  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:41 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You quoted your own post as a cite?
It is not a cite. You asked a question that I had already provided an answer to.

Quote:
The airwaves they are using are owned by Verizon and AT&T and Sprint and so on who purchased the spectrum from the government for cell phone use.

You and I pay our cell providers for use of those airwaves.

They are not broadcasters and we do not get the signals for free like broadcast TV so they are not regulated.

The internet is also not a public resource. It is all privately owned and we pay for its use. Same as cable TV (which is why cable TV is able to offer nudity and violence and whatnot that broadcast TV cannot).
There are not unlimited airwaves. You may not consider these things to be public resources, maybe the law doesn't either, but I help pay for them and I do. If twitter wants to buy all of the land to run cable to your twitting device without using eminent domain or public airwaves for people to say "I'm tweeting now", then they can censor anything they want. But they didn't do that, they couldn't possibly do that and have enough users to make it worthwhile at the price they would have to charge.

There's another more important principle here, I may not like what you say, I may hate what you say, I may hate you, but I will defend with my life your right to say
your loathsome speech. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom, without it none of our rights can be maintained.
  #15  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:42 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter is a communication system provider, the Dope is not. The situation is the equivalent of an ISP not allowing the Dope to operate because they don't like what Cecil, or Ed, or you or I believe in even though the Dope has not violated any rules of the internet.
Twitter is not an ISP. Twitter is not a public utility either.
  #16  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:49 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It is not a cite. You asked a question that I had already provided an answer to.



There are not unlimited airwaves. You may not consider these things to be public resources, maybe the law doesn't either, but I help pay for them and I do. If twitter wants to buy all of the land to run cable to your twitting device without using eminent domain or public airwaves for people to say "I'm tweeting now", then they can censor anything they want. But they didn't do that, they couldn't possibly do that and have enough users to make it worthwhile at the price they would have to charge.

There's another more important principle here, I may not like what you say, I may hate what you say, I may hate you, but I will defend with my life your right to say
your loathsome speech. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom, without it none of our rights can be maintained.
Free speech is more important to you than staying alive?
  #17  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:50 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
There are not unlimited airwaves. You may not consider these things to be public resources, maybe the law doesn't either, but I help pay for them and I do. If twitter wants to buy all of the land to run cable to your twitting device without using eminent domain or public airwaves for people to say "I'm tweeting now", then they can censor anything they want. But they didn't do that, they couldn't possibly do that and have enough users to make it worthwhile at the price they would have to charge.

There's another more important principle here, I may not like what you say, I may hate what you say, I may hate you, but I will defend with my life your right to say
your loathsome speech. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom, without it none of our rights can be maintained.
As I noted Twitter is not broadcasting.

Verizon and AT&T and their like buy radio spectrum for cell phone use. You rent use of that spectrum. They are not broadcasting to the public. They are broadcasting to their subscribers. They are agnostic (at least so far) about what content you request and is sent to you via the cell network.

That or you are renting a hard wired pipe to your house from an ISP. Again not public, akin to cable TV so not regulated as a public resource.

And as for your last bit ONLY the government can deny you your first amendment rights. Twitter can't. The SDMB can't. Reddit can't. Breitbart can't. YouTube can't. Take your pick. They can all censor you on their own platform at a whim for any or no reason whatsoever. None are required to carry your or anyone else's message.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-15-2018 at 09:51 PM.
  #18  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:58 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Free speech is more important to you than staying alive?
Yes. And it has been to others. That's why we have it.
  #19  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:02 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
As I noted Twitter is not broadcasting.

Verizon and AT&T and their like buy radio spectrum for cell phone use. You rent use of that spectrum. They are not broadcasting to the public. They are broadcasting to their subscribers. They are agnostic (at least so far) about what content you request and is sent to you via the cell network.

That or you are renting a hard wired pipe to your house from an ISP. Again not public, akin to cable TV so not regulated as a public resource.

And as for your last bit ONLY the government can deny you your first amendment rights. Twitter can't. The SDMB can't. Reddit can't. Breitbart can't. YouTube can't. Take your pick. They can all censor you on their own platform at a whim for any or no reason whatsoever. None are required to carry your or anyone else's message.
If any of what you say is well accepted I still disagree with it. The government has the right to regulate all of these services in the public interest. The government can regulate services using no pubic resources if it is in the public interest. Neither you nor I decide these things, they have to be decided through the courts when they come into question. I have given my opinion on the subject, I think the judge should stand up to your kind of reasoning, and apparently he has. I sincerely doubt this will make it through the process and that Nazi asshole will be censored.

You'll change your mind on the subject once your right to free speech is taken away.
  #20  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:05 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Free speech is more important to you than staying alive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Yes. And it has been to others. That's why we have it.
OK, that makes sense.

What do you think is supposed to happen if my freedom of speech risks killing you?
  #21  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:12 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If any of what you say is well accepted I still disagree with it. The government has the right to regulate all of these services in the public interest. The government can regulate services using no pubic resources if it is in the public interest.

<snip>

You'll change your mind on the subject once your right to free speech is taken away.
You are right that congress could try to pass laws regulating Twitter and the SDMB but that would not be a constitutional protection for you but a legal protection. Not the same thing and I am willing to bet such a law would be challenged in court as soon as it was passed.

And again, your right to free speech is not, can not, be abridged by Twitter or the SDMB or any private company or citizen. Your first amendment constitutional right to free speech protects you from the government only. This is not a matter of opinion. That's what it is and how that one works.

Try it this way:

If I come into your living room and start spewing some nonsense and you tell me to shut up and I don't so you call the police and have me forcibly removed have you violated my right to free speech?
  #22  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:13 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
OK, that makes sense.

What do you think is supposed to happen if my freedom of speech risks killing you?
It could be censored. But that risk is defined in this country as an imminent danger, not just someone's fear of a hypothetical danger.
  #23  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:16 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post

If I come into your living room and start spewing some nonsense and you tell me to shut up and I don't so you call the police and have me forcibly removed have you violated my right to free speech?
No. But I paid for my living room, the government didn't give it to me, and you have no right to use my living room for any purpose of which I do not approve. If my living room was given to me by the government, they could in theory, in a ridiculously isolated circumstance tell me I have to let you act like an idiot in my living room.
  #24  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:18 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It could be censored. But that risk is defined in this country as an imminent danger, not just someone's fear of a hypothetical danger.
Hypothetically: In that case you've stolen my freedom of speech, and I'm going to kill you over that.
  #25  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:22 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
No. But I paid for my living room, the government didn't give it to me, and you have no right to use my living room for any purpose of which I do not approve. If my living room was given to me by the government, they could in theory, in a ridiculously isolated circumstance tell me I have to let you act like an idiot in my living room.
When you use Twitter you are using their property. The government did not give it to them. It is their servers. Their program. They paid for the lot. You are, in effect, in their virtual living room. You are using their property. They are not compelled to let you use it. They can deny you access for any reason they want same as you can kick me out of your living room for any reason you want. No one's rights are being trampled on.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-15-2018 at 10:23 PM.
  #26  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:27 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
When you use Twitter you are using their property. The government did not give it to them. It is their servers. Their program. They paid for the lot. You are, in effect, in their virtual living room. You are using their property. They are not compelled to let you use it. They can deny you access for any reason they want same as you can kick me out of your living room for any reason you want. No one's rights are being trampled on.
Their virtual living room does not exist without my share of the airwaves and my share of the internet.

I've stated my case clearly. You may disagree with me, but your analogies are failing. If you believe people have ownership of public resources that is your right. I disagree.
  #27  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:33 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Their virtual living room does not exist without my share of the airwaves and my share of the internet.

I've stated my case clearly. You may disagree with me, but your analogies are failing. If you believe people have ownership of public resources that is your right. I disagree.
You're saying Twitter is government owned?
  #28  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:37 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Their virtual living room does not exist without my share of the airwaves and my share of the internet.

I've stated my case clearly. You may disagree with me, but your analogies are failing. If you believe people have ownership of public resources that is your right. I disagree.
What airwaves?

A broadcast signal from (say) NBC is streaming through your home right now. The content on that is in your home right now and you can access it for free same as anyone else in their broadcast area. The government regulates that since the public owns the airspace so has a say what is in their living room.

Not so with Twitter. When you access Twitter you are going to THEIR server. Literally a box they own on their property and you are using their resources. They have no control over how the information is sent back to you. They do not broadcast over airwaves from their server to everyone. They send the information back out a hardwired pipe that they paid for.

The signal does not end up in every living room in the city over public airspace. It might travel down a cable pipe that you paid for or it might be broadcast from a cell tower with a limited range whose service you also paid for. For those in the area who are also in the signal's range cannot view it because the data is coded only to be displayed on your equipment (which is why you do not see your neighbor's text messages).

It is NOT a public broadcast.

This is not my opinion. This is how it works currently.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-15-2018 at 10:37 PM.
  #29  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:42 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
What airwaves?

A broadcast signal from (say) NBC is streaming through your home right now. The content on that is in your home right now and you can access it for free same as anyone else in their broadcast area. The government regulates that since the public owns the airspace so has a say what is in their living room.

Not so with Twitter. When you access Twitter you are going to THEIR server. Literally a box they own on their property and you are using their resources. They have no control over how the information is sent back to you. They do not broadcast over airwaves from their server to everyone. They send the information back out a hardwired pipe that they paid for.

The signal does not end up in every living room in the city over public airspace. It might travel down a cable pipe that you paid for or it might be broadcast from a cell tower with a limited range whose service you also paid for. For those in the area who are also in the signal's range cannot view it because the data is coded only to be displayed on your equipment (which is why you do not see your neighbor's text messages).

It is NOT a public broadcast.

This is not my opinion. This is how it works currently.
Twitter does not have a 'hard-wired pipe' to my cell phone. They do not have any hard wiring that does not depend on public resources. I didn't say it was a 'public broadcast', those are your words, not mine. They use public resources.
  #30  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:46 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter does not have a 'hard-wired pipe' to my cell phone. They do not have any hard wiring that does not depend on public resources. I didn't say it was a 'public broadcast', those are your words, not mine. They use public resources.
Your ISP is also government owned?
  #31  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:47 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Your ISP is also government owned?
Not their equipment, their software, their other assets, no.
  #32  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:50 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter is a communication system provider, the Dope is not.
They're both the same thing, just on very different scales.

Everything, every single thing, you claim about Twitter's use of "public resources" applies to this board and pretty much every person and business everywhere. Everyone uses public resources, that's why they're public.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-15-2018 at 10:52 PM.
  #33  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:55 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
They're both the same thing, just on very different scales.

Everything, every single thing, you claim about Twitter's use of "public resources" applies to this board and pretty much every person and business everywhere. Everyone uses public resources, that's why they're public.
Some public resources are fairly available to all people because they are in effect unlimited. The internet is not, nor are the airways. The Dope is not an ISP (is it?). As I said, the Dope is a user just like the shithead in question, as are you and I (users, not shitheads, if that is not clear).

Last edited by TriPolar; 06-15-2018 at 10:55 PM.
  #34  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:56 PM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The Dope is not an ISP (is it?). As I said, the Dope is a user just like the shithead in question, as are you and I (users, not shitheads, if that is not clear).
That's what Twitter is too. Twitter is a website, not an ISP.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-15-2018 at 10:57 PM.
  #35  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:00 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
That's what Twitter is too.
I believe there is a difference in scale. Twitter consumes far more of the public resource than the Dope or you or I or whoever this guy is.

Why don't you try to convince me that there is a public interest in censoring people with unpopular opinions instead.
  #36  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:17 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I believe there is a difference in scale. Twitter consumes far more of the public resource than the Dope or you or I or whoever this guy is.

Why don't you try to convince me that there is a public interest in censoring people with unpopular opinions instead.
There doesn't need to be. There only needs to be a Twitter interest in censoring things they don't like.

Here's a better analogy than yours:

People who use Twitter are posting as if on Twitter's front door.

If people post things on your front door, are you required to leave all of them up? I'll remind you that your front door is visible from the street. (If your own literal front door isn't, then imagine that it was.)
  #37  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:23 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Twitter does not have a 'hard-wired pipe' to my cell phone. They do not have any hard wiring that does not depend on public resources. I didn't say it was a 'public broadcast', those are your words, not mine. They use public resources.
First off I said "broadcast" because you brought up use of public airwaves. Those who are regulated when using public airwaves are the broadcasters. Twitter is not a broadcaster.

Next, where are you getting "public resources" from?

What part does the government own?

Twitter rents a connection to an ISP. Given the size of Twitter I would not be surprised if they connect directly to a backbone provider. Either Twitter or the ISP owns the cable running in to the Twitter offices which connect to Twitter computers.

There is no government here. None.

Once at the ISP the data goes to the person who requested it. It is not ending up in everyone's living room like a broadcast is (which is why those are regulated).

The whole way it is a private endeavor. You are making use of Twitter property. You abide by Twitter's rules. Twitter absolutely has the final say in what they allow on their property with only minimal government protections (I assume if they banned all black people or women they'd probably get in trouble for discrimination).
  #38  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:29 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
There doesn't need to be. There only needs to be a Twitter interest in censoring things they don't like.

Here's a better analogy than yours:

People who use Twitter are posting as if on Twitter's front door.

If people post things on your front door, are you required to leave all of them up? I'll remind you that your front door is visible from the street. (If your own literal front door isn't, then imagine that it was.)
I should not be able to prevent people from reading what is on my front door from the public street. It would be trespassing if they posted on my front door, but then I just go back to private ownership. I don't own the street in front of my house though, I can't stop someone from posting on that street. But that street is accessible entirely through other public streets. The internet is not, you cannot get on the virtual street without going through private property, even though that street is a public resource.

The situation is like the government allowing people to buy and own the property at either end of my street and all the cross streets so that the only way I could use the public street I live on is through the permission of those property owners. Supposing that there is good reason for the government to allow this should they then allow those property owners to deny my access to the public street that I live on because they don't like my beliefs?
  #39  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:33 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Twitter is privately owned. If you want to socialize Twitter, then call Congress and tell them.
  #40  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:37 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I believe there is a difference in scale. Twitter consumes far more of the public resource than the Dope or you or I or whoever this guy is.
Twitter and the SDMB consume the same amount of public resources: zero. Twitter isn't a broadcaster. They don't send their stuff out. People choose to use a public resource to access their servers, but saying that this allows the government to dictate their policies is precisely as absurd as saying the government can dictate a business's policies because people get there using a public road.
  #41  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:40 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I should not be able to prevent people from reading what is on my front door from the public street. It would be trespassing if they posted on my front door, but then I just go back to private ownership. I don't own the street in front of my house though, I can't stop someone from posting on that street. But that street is accessible entirely through other public streets. The internet is not, you cannot get on the virtual street without going through private property, even though that street is a public resource.
Question:

Does a print newspaper have the final say in what they publish in their paper? Do they have to publish anything you send to them because they use public roads to deliver the paper?
  #42  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:40 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 38,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Twitter and the SDMB consume the same amount of public resources: zero. Twitter isn't a broadcaster. They don't send their stuff out. People choose to use a public resource to access their servers, but saying that this allows the government to dictate their policies is precisely as absurd as saying the government can dictate a business's policies because people get there using a public road.
But they do.
  #43  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:46 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone!
Posts: 26,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The government has the right to regulate all of these services in the public interest. The government can regulate services using no pubic resources if it is in the public interest.


Newspapers and books use no public resources, but by your argument the Government can regulate their free speech?

Can cCongress pass a law that gives the President a right to require that newspapers publish his rebuttal to what he considers to be fake news on a matter of public interest?
  #44  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:48 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 22,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The government has the right to regulate all of these services in the public interest.
Governments don't have rights; people do.
  #45  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:56 PM
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 10,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I should not be able to prevent people from reading what is on my front door from the public street. It would be trespassing if they posted on my front door, but then I just go back to private ownership. I don't own the street in front of my house though, I can't stop someone from posting on that street.
They are not posting on the street. They are posting on your front door. It's just that people from the street can see those messages on your front door.

Twitter the business is your house and property.

Twitter.com, what we all see, is your front door.

The street is the public resource everyone else uses to see what is on your front door, that you let people put messages there.

Can the government force you to let anyone put any message they want on your front door by coming onto your property and putting it there on your front door?
__________________
"Small scrap nipple slap half half." -Max Black

Last edited by Drunky Smurf; 06-15-2018 at 11:56 PM.
  #46  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:56 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Arbitrary and Capricious
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,115
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Hypothetically: In that case you've stolen my freedom of speech, and I'm going to kill you over that.
This is a warning for threats against another poster.

I understand the most likely interpretation of this is that it is only a rhetorical device and not a bona fide threat. It matters not. Threats against other posters are taken very seriously, and are potential Insta ban offenses. It doesn't happen often and you're relatively new here so yoy may not have seen it occur.

Do not do this again.

From the FAQ:
Quote:
Threatening harm - Posters may not threaten to harm or to wish for harm to befall other posters for any reason whatsoever.
Let me be clear: You do not enjoy 1st amendment protection here. We can exclude posters at our whim. We choose to publish rules and guidelines to foster any environment conducive to discussion. Threats destroy that environment. No threats of any kind are allowed. No joking about threats. No pretend threats. No threats for any reason whatsoever.

[/moderating]
  #47  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:58 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
But they do.
Not in the way you are suggesting they regulate Twitter, and not for any of the same reasons.
  #48  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:06 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Arbitrary and Capricious
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Today San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn ruled in Jared Taylor’s favor during a hearing Thursday on Twitter’s request to dismiss. Dismiss what, many are asking?
Whenever the topic is a court case, I always want to read the actual court language. In this case I can't find it - maybe it's not published yet. Here is the text of the complaint. This is a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss - my understanding is that typically these are viewed as favorably as possible for the plaintiffs.

It seems the grounds on which the judge is allowing the lawsuit to continue is narrow:
Quote:
Some of the suit’s complaints were still dismissed; at this point, Taylor is just arguing that Twitter violated California’s Unfair Competition Law with misleading statements and an unconscionably restrictive banning policy.
The continuing basis for the lawsuit is the CA Unfair Competition Law. This seems pretty weak, but at this stage of the lawsuit the standards are quite low to allow it to proceed. This isn't about public resources being used, airwaves, etc. It's not even about free speech per se, it appears. Seems like early stages to me.

Last edited by Bone; 06-16-2018 at 01:15 AM.
  #49  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:30 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is a warning for threats against another poster.

I understand the most likely interpretation of this is that it is only a rhetorical device and not a bona fide threat. It matters not. Threats against other posters are taken very seriously, and are potential Insta ban offenses. It doesn't happen often and you're relatively new here so yoy may not have seen it occur.

Do not do this again.

From the FAQ:

Let me be clear: You do not enjoy 1st amendment protection here. We can exclude posters at our whim. We choose to publish rules and guidelines to foster any environment conducive to discussion. Threats destroy that environment. No threats of any kind are allowed. No joking about threats. No pretend threats. No threats for any reason whatsoever.

[/moderating]
I figured that writing hypothetically: in front was sufficient, and I see that it's not. Sorry for the offensive post.
  #50  
Old 06-16-2018, 08:31 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,669
This is one of those “why do I bother engaging the guy making terrible arguments” moments, but I can’t help myself.

Tripolar, lets say my local CBS affiliate decides to boost its lackluster ratings by replacing saturday morning cartoons with three hours of hardcore porn and videos of people shouting obscenities.

Because this content is broadcast on public airwaves, are the government and the Columbia Boradcasting Corporation both prohibited, under the First Amendment, from preventing that programming from being played?

And if the affiliate did play the porn, and the FCC pulled the stations broadcast license; or when the FCC fined that network over Janet Jackson’s boob at the Super Bowl, those too were unconstitutional penalties?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017