|
Replies: 35
| visibility 153
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Today's lesson on how the First Amendment works.
Apr 30, 2020, 11:37 AM
|
|
Apparently there's some real confusion among a lot of people on this board on how the First Amendment works, so I'm here to help. Let's go!
First, the actual words of the First Amendment:
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.
Now, this language of the amendment pertains exclusively to the government and publicly-funded entities Now, it doesn't mean that other government bodies other than Congress can restrict your free speech as one long ago P&R regular used to foolishly argue during the Bush years. This applies to all government and public entities.
That means the president or Congress or your local police or public schools, etc. Now, there are limits to this, of course, such as "fightin' words" or speech that could put people's lives at danger or libel/slander. Libel/slander is when you write or say something false about a person that causes defamation, or damages their reputation. Libel is written; slander is spoken.
So here's where I'm seeing confusion on this board. Some people seem to think the law of the First Amendment applies to private corporations. It doesn't.
For example, a public school can't restrict your religious freedoms or prevent a student from speaking out about politics. A private school, however, can do just that. They aren't governed by the First Amendment.
Or Tigernet. Crump and BMeist can regulate what's posted on here because it's their privately-owned site. Otherwise, they would have to allow every Gamecock troll or Nikola Tesla who wanted to post here, and we don't want that, right?
Thus, private corporations like YouTube or Twitter or Google cannot infringe on your right to free speech as they are allowed to dictate the content on their private site. Users who don't like those decisions can post their views elsewhere, or even try to create their own forum. And the government can't stop them from doing that.
But here's the big kicker: If you are a person advocating for places like YouTube or Twitter to be required to air all viewpoints and videos, that means you are calling for the government to violate the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to these corporations. Thus, YOU are the one who wants someone's free speech violated.
So, in short, private corporations cannot restrict your free speech. The First Amendment protects you from the government violating your speech rights. If a private corporation eliminates views you enjoy or won't let you air them on their websites, you have alternatives to get that info or express it elsewhere and the government can't stop you.
Are we all good now?
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [82103]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 26982
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Today's lesson on how the First Amendment works.
Apr 30, 2020, 11:49 AM
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
40
Posts: 10117
Joined: 2011
|
Re: Today's lesson on how the First Amendment works.
Apr 30, 2020, 11:56 AM
|
|
Nope. The act of selectively “picking and choosing” forum content makes you a publisher, and the rules change. They’re exempted from standard libel law because it was understood they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication, not curators of acceptable opinions and content. They are blatantly stepping on the first amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [36208]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 34638
Joined: 1999
|
^^^ This guy gets it!***
Apr 30, 2020, 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25728]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 18023
Joined: 2000
|
No he doesn't***
Apr 30, 2020, 12:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Heh. No.
Apr 30, 2020, 12:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: Today's lesson on how the First Amendment works. ] |
|
You really don't get it.
If you are a PRIVATE publisher, the First Amendment doesn't apply to you, at least in the sense that you have to publish everything.
Do newspapers publish every letter that comes in?
Go ahead. Try to sue YouTube for violating your First Amendment rights and see how far it gets. Or what lawyer will take the case.
Your case will be dead before it ever sees a courtroom.
It's amazing how many of y'all really don't grasp how the First Amendment applies only to government infringement on your speech. Or the absurdity of how you actually want the government to violate the speech of those companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
40
Posts: 10117
Joined: 2011
|
Re: Heh. No.
Apr 30, 2020, 12:07 PM
|
|
Then congress should rescind their libel exemption protection. You’re a platform or a publisher, not both. Let me reiterate, they were granted a libel exemption by the US Congress as long as they OPERATED AS A PLATFORM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
You're still not getting it...
Apr 30, 2020, 12:12 PM
|
|
Their libel exemption protects them in case I upload a defamatory video and they can't get it down in time before people see it, thus sparking a lawsuit against the major company. You could even have two people work in cahoots to upload that video just to bring about the big lawsuit.
That exemption doesn't automatically turn them into a public, government-sponsored forum of expression. It's a protection against crooks and bad people who would try to game the system.
They still exist as a private corporation. In fact, look at what you're arguing. It sounds like you're arguing these sites should be required to keep libelous and slanderous material up on their sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
40
Posts: 10117
Joined: 2011
|
Re: You're still not getting it...
Apr 30, 2020, 1:11 PM
|
|
They’ve taken definitions of “defamatory and inappropriate” and applied it too broadly. It has reached a point where, for example, YouTube is removing videos that oppose a main stream narrative. Watch the following, then ask what would justify removal? Clearly, no standard of decency or content was violated.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5ea4994ea881fd00808e95ad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Re: You're still not getting it...
May 1, 2020, 1:58 AM
|
|
You still haven't made a case why they are subject to First Amendment compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5238]
TigerPulse: 99%
38
|
Re: Heh. No.
Apr 30, 2020, 12:58 PM
[ in reply to Heh. No. ] |
|
If a newspaper doesn't publish every letter to the editor, why is a wedding cake maker forced to make a cake that clearly expresses it is made for two gays?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Heh. No.
Apr 30, 2020, 1:08 PM
|
|
Completely irrelevant to this discussion. And didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the cake maker?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [25728]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 18023
Joined: 2000
|
What does a wedding cake have to do with online forums?
Apr 30, 2020, 1:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: Heh. No. ] |
|
Are you being discriminated against again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
15
|
They don’t have to. Thanks to, you know, the rights that
Apr 30, 2020, 4:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Heh. No. ] |
|
private businesses, like YouTube, have. Try again, maybe you’ll have better luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
I don't think a lot of people realize that none of the
Apr 30, 2020, 11:59 AM
|
|
rights listed in the first amendment are absolute. We all agree with this, except maybe some people don't realize it.
For example, your freedom of speech is limited in lots of ways, like in cases of libel and slander, and making violent threats, inciting riots, etc.
Your freedom of assembly is limited. You often need a permit to assemble in certain ways.
Your freedom of religion is limited. For example, a religion does not have the right to "free exercise" of child sacrifice.
In all cases, the right is so limited because it is determined that the freedom of another person to live and to live safely takes precedence over the right.
To apply it to today, I believe, if got so far, a law temporarily prohibiting a physical meeting of a group of people in a church building would be upheld on Constitutional grounds, as long as there is not particular restriction placed on a church, not placed on other entities. The right to free exercise of that religion is being temporarily limited, in the interest of the freedom of other people to live and live safely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Re: I don't think a lot of people realize that none of the
Apr 30, 2020, 12:03 PM
|
|
To apply it to today, I believe, if got so far, a law temporarily prohibiting a physical meeting of a group of people in a church building would be upheld on Constitutional grounds, as long as there is not particular restriction placed on a church, not placed on other entities. The right to free exercise of that religion is being temporarily limited, in the interest of the freedom of other people to live and live safely.
I'm glad you get it.
Folks are still allowed to practice their religion freely through teleconference during this time. The First Amendment doesn't apply if you're putting people's lives in danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
I don't like to say "First Amendment doesn't apply".
Apr 30, 2020, 12:04 PM
|
|
I would rather say "this law does not violate the First Amendment".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Valid point.***
Apr 30, 2020, 12:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
Now, if a government is sued, and they cannot demonstrate
Apr 30, 2020, 12:07 PM
[ in reply to I don't think a lot of people realize that none of the ] |
|
that the law is necessary for the preservation of life and safety, then they are going to be in trouble.
I'm all for a person suing if they feel like they need to. Let the courts decide...that's why they're there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
And I wouldn't be surprised...
Apr 30, 2020, 12:10 PM
|
|
If we see such a lawsuit once this is all over. I'd be shocked if some churches haven't already consulted attorneys.
A good example of what you cited is the court case Tinker v. Des Moines, which strongly protects First Amendment rights of students in K-12 schools. A school must provide valid evidence that the student's speech would disrupt the educational process (like, say, a noisy protest in the cafeteria or something). Otherwise, it's a no go for the school to restrict the speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [176627]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 72600
Joined: 2013
|
I pretty much agree, and in the thread in which I engaged
Apr 30, 2020, 12:27 PM
[ in reply to I don't think a lot of people realize that none of the ] |
|
the topic, I specifically called out the banning of parking lot and drive-in services, where everyone stayed in their car and maintained distance, as what felt like constitutional overreach. I think they would have a hard time in court defending how anyone was an imminent danger to themselves or others in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
40
Posts: 10117
Joined: 2011
|
Re: I pretty much agree, and in the thread in which I engaged
Apr 30, 2020, 1:04 PM
|
|
Any law repugnant to the US Constitution should be willfully ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [176627]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 72600
Joined: 2013
|
great rule to live by if you have an excess of time and
Apr 30, 2020, 1:09 PM
|
|
Money, because you’ll need both while you’re sitting in jail paying lawyers to take their sweet time proving you’re correct in the court system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
54
Posts: 44815
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102923]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98940
Joined: 2009
|
So you're pulling for the virus to win so Joe can take DC.
Apr 30, 2020, 12:45 PM
|
|
I would never have guessed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Lol wut***
Apr 30, 2020, 1:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5238]
TigerPulse: 99%
38
|
Re: Today's lesson on how the First Amendment works.
Apr 30, 2020, 12:46 PM
|
|
'so we don't want that, right?' Are you Crump or BMeist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Today's lesson on how the First Amendment works.
Apr 30, 2020, 1:09 PM
|
|
Last time I checked, nope. Your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26000]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14834
Joined: 2001
|
Don't underestimate your audience. They are not dumber
Apr 30, 2020, 4:43 PM
|
|
than you. People use "freedom of speech" in colloquial terms, often referring to the principle more than the legal right. When one refers to "due process" in a non court setting, they don't expect a legal enforcing of a person's presumption of innocence, but are referring to the way truth is discerned rather than assumed.
But with these long explanations apparently being needed, we are at least acknowledging what some have denied: the media is radically left, to the point of shutting down voices and information they don't like. Thank you for the tutorial on legal vs colloquial use of a call to open mindedness, but we at least now know that we all know the media ignores it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
40
Posts: 10117
Joined: 2011
|
Re: Don't underestimate your audience. They are not dumber
Apr 30, 2020, 7:13 PM
|
|
It’s oppression, pure and simple. Examples can be seen everywhere now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Let it be known...
May 1, 2020, 1:52 AM
|
|
On this day, MemphisCat claimed YouTube oppresses him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48738]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 43465
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Don't underestimate your audience. They are not dumber
May 1, 2020, 1:51 AM
[ in reply to Don't underestimate your audience. They are not dumber ] |
|
Don't underestimate your audience. They are not dumber than you.
I didn't say they were dumber. But anyone who doesn't understand that the First Amendment only applies to government infringement, well, they're suspect.
People use "freedom of speech" in colloquial terms, often referring to the principle more than the legal right. When one refers to "due process" in a non court setting, they don't expect a legal enforcing of a person's presumption of innocence, but are referring to the way truth is discerned rather than assumed.
I think you need to go read some of these posts. They're arguing that YouTube and other private companies are restricting their free speech. So no, not what you're saying.
But with these long explanations apparently being needed, we are at least acknowledging what some have denied: the media is radically left, to the point of shutting down voices and information they don't like. Thank you for the tutorial on legal vs colloquial use of a call to open mindedness, but we at least now know that we all know the media ignores it.
This topic and the opinions I'm addressing have nothing to do with the media. YouTube, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26000]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14834
Joined: 2001
|
A narrow distinction. Is there any news media? I do not
May 1, 2020, 3:06 AM
|
|
know of one source that does not operate primarily as opinion / entertainment / veiwpoint-influencers. When google and youtube unapologetically do the same thing, what is the difference? One has by-lines, the other doesn't: that's it. To defend them by affirming their legality seems to be a last resort defense, openly throwing in the towel on what the left once claimed as their defining characteristic: tolerance and open mindedness. No more of that, I guess. Now there will be some technical defense for what the FBI did to Flynn, for why Comey should not be in jail, and that youtube will take down any contrary view.
But you're right, its legal. Great country we're creating,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 35
| visibility 153
|
|
|
50
