# OK Let's do this: who thinks social media's recent bannings are first amendment violations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2021, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310 "2021-01-12T03:26:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/1 "2021-01-12T03:26:19Z")
## Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/2 "2021-01-12T03:29:46Z")
The Congress is not censoring. Corporations are not covered by the 1st amendment last I knew. I know you always hear ignorant people spouting off about their first amendment rights in many cases that have zero to do with the government, but that is just it, they’re are ignorant of what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/3 "2021-01-12T03:41:02Z")
The first amendment means the government can’t suppress free speech (in most situations). It has nothing to do with whether private companies can refuse to host speech that is related to terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/4 "2021-01-12T03:42:07Z")
There is no debate here. It factually isn’t. You can try to argue there’s something else wrong with it, but it definitively does not violate the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/5 "2021-01-12T03:56:33Z")
There IS ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/6 "2021-01-12T04:08:42Z")
There is what? To whom are you responding? And what’s there to debate? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/7 "2021-01-12T04:09:39Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > There IS Then make it. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/8 "2021-01-12T04:10:26Z")
There is a debate, because so many people are framing it as a breach of 1A. Are you telling me not a single doper feels that way? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/9 "2021-01-12T04:12:11Z")
internet crashed while trying to respond ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/10 "2021-01-12T04:12:54Z")
What ever happened to the right wingers who said that bakers don’t have to bake for gay weddings? Private companies can’t be forced to process the demands of those they disagree with politically. Ergo … ---
**Author:** ![Paintcharge](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paintcharge/32/7946_2.png) [@Paintcharge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paintcharge)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/11 "2021-01-12T04:13:02Z")
There is no debate because it is not a first amendment issue. Private companies are allowed to do what they want in this case. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/12 "2021-01-12T04:14:03Z")
I suppose it’s possible there’s a Doper who feels that way, but there’s some real loons on this board, to be honest. Anyway, it’s factually **not** a First Amendment issue. As for whether it’s right or not, that’s a separate question. My thoughts on that one are pretty much this: > **[Free Speech](https://xkcd.com/1357/)** > > I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/13 "2021-01-12T04:14:14Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Are you telling me not a single doper feels that way? Not a single correct doper feels that way. I can’t speak for those who are ignorant of the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/14 "2021-01-12T04:16:46Z")
Not only is it not a First Amendment issue: **# 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material** “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/15 "2021-01-12T04:17:21Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > There is a debate, because so many people are framing it as a breach of 1A. Are you telling me not a single doper feels that way? No one who reads the text of the first amendment feels that way. > [@lissener](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Were social media’s recent bannings a law made by congress? The amendment, as you quoted it, only restricts what the government can do, not what private companies can do. Now… as BigT points out, there may, in fact, be a problem if a small number of tech companies have an undo influence on public discourse. Maybe there’s a monopoly/oligopaly that needs to be broken up, or maybe there’s some other issue. But it’s not a first amendment issue. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/16 "2021-01-12T04:34:15Z")
I agree that there isn’t a “First Amendment” issue here (or even, from a non-U.S. perspective, a “free speech” issue). There _might_ conceivably be an oligopoly issue incipient in all this. In technical terms, I _think_ that if [ICANN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN) just somehow refused to recognize a namespace–say, wisians dot com, on the grounds that everyone knows [Wisians](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-01-19-9201060158-story.html) are all shiftless and untrustworthy, and they’re all welfare cheats, and they control Hollywood and all the big banks, and they stabbed us in the back and that’s why we lost The War–that _would_ be a genuine free speech issue. I’m not 100% sure ICANN can even do that, but if they did, I would have a problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/17 "2021-01-12T04:34:41Z")
No, I don’t feel that it’s a debate, because I actually understand what is, and is not, protected by the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/18 "2021-01-12T05:15:52Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > There is a debate, because so many people are framing it as a breach of 1A. Are you telling me not a single doper feels that way? Generally, private companies can do what they want but there are limits. The 60s saw legislation passed which limited what private businesses could do when it came to serving minority groups for example. But again, as of 2021, private companies are not required to allow people to use their platforms to push their political ideology. Especially when that ideology is tied to domestic terrorism or attempts to overthrow the government. Fox news isn’t required to promote communism or give a platform to communists, and twitter isn’t required to give a platform to right wingers. And again there is the issue of domestic terrorism and attempts to overthrow the government being done by these same people. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/19 "2021-01-12T05:25:04Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > No, I don’t feel that it’s a debate, because I actually understand what is, and is not, protected by the First Amendment. Perfectly said. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2021, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310/20 "2021-01-12T05:27:51Z")
Could the OP, who started this debate, take a stab at explaining why they think that there is a 1st Amendment violation? Beyond just quoting the amendment. I would be interested to hear their argument. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-lets-do-this-who-thinks-social-medias-recent-bannings-are-first-amendment-violations/930310.md?page=2)