Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit

Re:Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit by hsitz on Saturday December 10, 2016 @07:27PM (#13148832)

There exists doctrine in constitutional law where its guarantees are deemed to apply even when the actor infringing the right is a private party. This can occur in cases where a private party is deemed to be a "state actor". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor

I would suggest that even large social media organizations are not "state actors", so federal constitutional protections don't apply. Of course, states are free to enact laws on their own to guarantee free speech in social media, if they want. It's just not protected by U.S. Constitution, not a constitutional right. [As an editorial aside, I'm dismayed at the general low level of understanding of constitutional rights in the U.S., even among "well-educated" people.]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Imzy wants to be a kinder, gentler version of Reddit by Nomentatus on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @06:20PM (#13172228)

I think this is a bit to one side of the question. Where government is doing the regulating, then surely the government itself is a state actor and must not infringe constitutional rights or be a party to same. You can argue it doesn't have any business calling anything a public utility, but that would be a different argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]