Poll of the Day > Would banning a social media app / site violate The First Ammendment in the US?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's interesting because it potentially violates both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly.

---

no

---

I feel like that is meant for people with way more knowledge of constitutional law to determine and not me.

---

it would be ironic, wouldn't it?

Social Media censors anyone they want to fit their political ideology for their "platform". Anyone who complains "must be alt-right morons who can't understand that 1A rights doesn't apply to them on a private platform (despite Art.23 protection)".

Yet, if/when the government finds a way to shut that "platform" down, it's Social Media that'll cry a 1A violation?

---

They should go after Twitter for violating conservative peoples first amendment rights. They have fun banning us.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

They should go after Twitter for violating conservative peoples first amendment rights. They have fun banning us.

That's not how the first amendment works.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

They should go after Twitter for violating conservative peoples first amendment rights. They have fun banning us.

If you don't want to be banned on Twitter, don't break Twitter's rules.

---

Even if it would hypothetically violate the 1st Amendment under some circumstances, it clearly doesn't jive with the reasons given for the ban here. However, on a more fundamental level, social media platforms aren't considered press (something that's worked to their benefit in the past) so they wouldn't be explicitly protected anyway.

Then there's the sub issue of these platforms being foreign-owned and foreign-based companies so they wouldn't necessarily have the same protections anyway.

---

Raze_Razel posted...

it would be ironic, wouldn't it?

Social Media censors anyone they want to fit their political ideology for their "platform". Anyone who complains "must be alt-right morons who can't understand that 1A rights doesn't apply to them on a private platform (despite Art.23 protection)".

Yet, if/when the government finds a way to shut that "platform" down, it's Social Media that'll cry a 1A violation?

you act like right wing folks arent active on social media and dont do the exact same thing

---

you can verbally speak absolutely anything you want
the same goes for online communications, but in the online world, people can change or remove anything as well

---

papercup posted...

If you don't want to be banned on Twitter, don't break Twitter's rules.

No, if one does not want to be banned on Twitter, you dont say anything praising the president. Its a liberal hellhole.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

No, if one does not want to be banned on Twitter, you dont say anything praising the president. Its a liberal hellhole.

Most of the replies to Trump tweets are about 50/50 liberals wanting his head and conservatives sucking his nuts.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

No, if one does not want to be banned on Twitter, you dont say anything praising the president. Its a liberal hellhole.

Considering Trump himself breaks the Twitter ToS about once a week and still hasn't been banned, I'm gonna go ahead and laugh at your wrongness.

---

Does banning paper violate free speech?

---

Does the first amendment apply to for-profit companies? If their product is a platform for "speech" does that even matter? You're legislating against the company, not the people "speaking".

---

I think it depends on the reason maybe? Like when it came to Tiktok I saw a decent number of articles indicating it was a legitimate security risk. Basically I think you would have to prove there is some sort of criminal or security risk to the company to be able to justify banning it in court.

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

They should go after Twitter for violating conservative peoples first amendment rights. They have fun banning us.

This on the other hand is completely unconstitutional and coming from someone who has absolutely no clue what the first amendment is.

I don't know, but ban them all.

---

While you could feasibly make an argument that forcibly shutting down something owned by a private business that is a method of commination that a large majority of citizens rely on (for undisclosed reasons) is stifling free speech, I'm not sure such an argument can be used for TikTok.

Certainly, there are other countries that have shut down social media, and sometimes the internet itself, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently, because they were being used to organize movements against the government.

But rather, while not a violation of the first amendment, it's a larger issue when these major methods of communication start trying to control a conversation society is having through selective censorship, not because of the governments direct involvement, not because a general safety rule is being enforced, but to try and direct opinions to the benefit and whims of the owners of the method of communication itself.
---

Mead posted...

you act like right wing folks arent active on social media and dont do the exact same thing

Except the Leftists are the gatekeepers, even though right-wingers 'try' to be active on social media, moderators (who are often Left-leaners) do all the censoring.

It depends. Are corporations people?
I don't think they are, so I'm fine w/ it. Though there should be a valid reason, not just how their politics lean, but actually being a foreign state agent or promoting a criminal ring or something.

But if you're one of those republicans that constantly screech, "corporations are people, my friend!" then you'd better be against this b/c it violates the First Amendment, lest you be a hypocrite. (lol, like they care)

BlackScythe0 posted...

Like when it came to Tiktok I saw a decent number of articles indicating it was a legitimate security risk. Basically I think you would have to prove there is some sort of criminal or security risk to the company to be able to justify banning it in court.

Even then, I feel like "security risk" is too vague and based more on the potential for malicious action than anything concrete that has actually happened. Coming from the party that insists that everyone should be able to have a gun unless they've already used one to kill somebody (hyperbole for brevity's sake), that seems a wee bit backwards.

Don't get me wrong, Tiktok was an absolute nightmare when it came to user privacy, even by regular social media standards, but the whole "national security risk" thing sounds like a load of fear-mongering nonsense to score anti-China points, rather than a genuine effort to protect citizens. Any genuine effort to legislate user privacy protections for social media apps would likely have prohibited basically everything Tiktok did, effectively banning it in its current form, but it would also have impacted every such app and actually accomplished something to protect people. Given this ban's current form, the folks behind Tiktok can basically clone the app, give it a new name, start a shell company in some other country (possibly even the US) to run it, and continue business as usual.

---

Not in the case of Tik Tok, it's a national security risk, which is not covered under the First Amendment.
---

Hop103 posted...

Not in the case of Tik Tok, it's a national security risk

theres no actual evidence of that

---

ryanell666 posted...

Except the Leftists are the gatekeepers, even though right-wingers 'try' to be active on social media, moderators (who are often Left-leaners) do all the censoring.

sorry that people on the left are just better at understanding and following simple rules my dude

that sounds really rough

---

no

---

Mead posted...

sorry that people on the left are just better at understanding and following simple rules my dude

Rules based in what country?...which is the on-going debate.

People who used social media tend to think they're still living in America (freedoms and all), but the rules seem to be based on China and Saudi Arabia (not so free) ...

Do you know what POPS laws are? Privately Owned Public Spaces? Some city parks are owned privately, but to the general public who have access to those spaces can still exercise their rights to be there regardless....which was why the "Occupy Wall-St" was allowed to happen..... and as the internet grows, TRUE Americans expect the same freedoms in the digital space as well. And if those "rules" were based on American principles, then the rules you rely on to censor shouldn't happen at all.

It isn't a violation. The government can absolutely refuse to allow a company to do business in the country.
---