The ACLU Asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?

Re:The ACLU Asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Na... by leereeves on Friday August 18, 2017 @07:56AM (#15045350)

Every platform limits the content based on the design of the tools. Being a common carrier wouldn't mean Facebook would be forced to support particular scripts any more than the phone company was required to develop video calls.

If there are some restrictions we want as a society, like age or porn, those could be made exceptions.

Regarding private forums, I'd distinguish between forums that seek to serve 99% of people and those that serve less than 1%. The first are public; the latter are private.

Facebook is just the last platform in a stack of platforms people use to communicate. Why would Facebook be allowed to restrict content while those who provide the services Facebook is built on wouldn't?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The ACLU Asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Na... by simonh on Friday August 18, 2017 @11:04AM (#15046811)

I already explained exactly why. They already have responsibility for the content on their platform simply due to the nature and design of the platform.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The ACLU Asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Na... by leereeves on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:50PM (#15048265)

ISPs also "have responsibility for the content on their platform" and police content already (for piracy, for example).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The ACLU Asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Na... by simonh on Saturday August 19, 2017 @03:27AM (#15052167)

That's completely beside the point. They are required to do that by law, in exactly the same way that the phone company can be required by law to cut of service or trace calls by the law or the courts. Its got nothing to do with common carrier status, which is about the discretion of the company not the government.

[ Parent | on HN ]