It's their platform they can censor who they want. Same concept if you had a personal blog and deleted certain comments and banned posters for posting things you disagreed with. Sure, some people may complain and say you banned X while allowing Y but at the end of the day its your blog and you can do what you want. The government certainly should not be able to come in and fine you for deleting comments on your blog.

>It's their platform they can censor who they want.

No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like.

I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley.

>The government certainly should not be able to come in and fine you for deleting comments on your blog.

But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms? Double standards are great!

>No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like.

No, it's not unconstitutional. Government officials are allowed to voice their opinion.

Having someone in a hearing and "voicing" your opinion all over the internet has real repercussions when it comes from a public institution that can obliterate your business with a few laws if you don't do what they like. It is not simply voicing their opinion, it's an obvious tactic to get away with shutting down dissenting opinions under the guise of questioning.

Why pass laws limiting speech when you can have your lackey friends in SV do it? It's a coercion tactic similar to what police do since they're in a position of power.

Would you be ok if they brought in the local restaurant owner and asked them why they served transgender people and when they were going to stop them from spreading trans culture inside their business?

> No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like.

I agree that elected officials shouldn't try to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment by threatening to regulate companies if they don't censor on behalf of those officials.

When they do, shouldn't we should place the blame at the feet of those elected officials, not the companies they're attempting to extort?

Isn't that sort of hard to separate though? Are they doing this on their own, or to stay in the good graces of the current administration? Would they even admit it if they're being coerced? The would have to go to the government to ask for help and that's certainly not going to work very well if those are the people instigating the problem in the first place.

Sure. That's problematic. But that's no excuse to not place blame where it should rightfully be laid, and instead place it elsewhere just because doing so is easier. There are rights at stake here.

"it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like". Maybe its unconstitutional (although if they did not use government power to force it then likely not) for the senator to encourage it, but it is most certainly not for the platform owner to do so.

"But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms?" Can you show me where the government threatened action if Trump was not removed from these platforms?

There is no double standards. Governments wield the power of state sanctioned violence and their ability to use that force to demand actions from private entities should be limited where ever possible. You are conflating private and government entities and they are really not comparable under any credible view especially that of the constitution.

Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms.

"I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley" This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.

Oh give me a break this is the lamest excuse for trashing the 1st amendment I've ever heard.

If you have government officials bringing executives and having hearings asking Zuckerberg when they're going to do something about removing speech they find offensive your first amendment is basically gone. Do you think they just invite him in to hear what he has to say? It's all an intimidation tactic to elicit coercion from these companies so they can use these platforms to push their agenda and silence anything else while guaranteeing funding.

>Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms.

Wow? gaslight much? This would have done the opposite by disallowing the platforms to allow you only to see specific things. I don't know what to tell you if you're so confused that you think blocking specific speech is more supportive of the 1st amendment.

>This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.

I don't even know what you mean by that. There's one party pushing de-platforming and removal right now.

"We don't serve colored folks here."

Are you suggesting that we should amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include "political opinion, affiliation, or belief" as a new protected class? If so, I think you may not have thought out the potential repercussions of that change.

You don't think people's personal beliefs and allowing speech without repercussions is something that should be protected?

I kinda think you're the one not considering repercussions of allowing these platforms to drive social norms.

If your opinion holds so much water then you should welcome the opportunity to have public discourse with someone who thinks differently.

What I hear when someone supports removing speech is just fear. Fear that their specific opinion won't stand up against someone else's.

Regardless of whether there's a legal way to stop these platforms from their current crusade I don't' see how any one can morally support what they're doing.

I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech.

I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement.

I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.

> I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech.

Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians?

>I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.

Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views?

Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.

> explain to me why it's ok for these politicians

because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone.

> why they're allowed to have hearings

same as above.

> Why one and not the other?

For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.

>because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone.

You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment.

Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.

I am following what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. They are not "explicitly coercing companies". There is no law forcing the companies to do it, no stated punishment for not doing it, no evidence that the companies would actually receive punishment if they did not do it. I understand you think that is the same as doing it themselves- from a moral standpoint you may be correct, but in my opinion, legally you are completely incorrect, and I am defending the laws.

Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.

I'm saying the only difference between OP and a racist 1960's store owner is *who* they think should be excluded.

Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just that the irony here is lost to most people.

You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. That is quite the persecution complex and quite a statement. If you are not stating this and I somehow got your intent wrong, my apologies.

Additionally I did not state I want anyone removed from social media, I just stated that private companies are allowed to censor over things that dont fall under a protected status.

>You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow.

So, essentially you're telling people they should stop thinking the way they do and think the way you want them to?

Would you apply this to trans people as well? I'm trying to figure out where your line is. Basically if it's an external physical attribute then discrimination is bad but if it's mental then discrimination is fine and dandy? Does this apply to homosexuality, religion, cultural attitudes etc?

My line is that its not wrong for a private company to censor a politician or entity that calls for violence and attempts to overturn an election without evidence. People claiming that all republicans are being censored are disingenuous. The only people being censored are those spreading unfounded dangerous claims that threaten the very heart of US democracy. Everyone else is still posting and tweeting without a care in the world besides the crosses they choose to bear in order to get clicks and eyeballs. No political party is being widely censored currently despite what certain media figures would have you believe.

Homosexuality and transgenderism, no, because they aren't choices, in my opinion based on the evidence I've seen they are biological/genetic in nature. Religion and cultural attitudes, yes, they're choices. I'll admit I'm in the minority here, but it's the only way I've found to have the view I have and be consistent.

I'm not defending the actions of Trump voters or trying to paint them as martyrs. This is more a issue with principle and long term precedent. back after 9/11 Republicans were largely in favor of the patriot act because they thought it would only be used against those Muslims they didn't care for. Fifteen years later those same counter terrorism spying laws were used to spy on and undermine the Republican presidential candidate. That's irony. Decades from now when the political winds change again what do you think will happen the next Bernie Sanders type candidates get close to winning elections? Don't be surprised if all the tech companies use AI to throttle any online communication that is supportive and magnify anything negative of the populist candidate.

Most of these people will completely change their stances the second someone they don't like gets voted in. I think theres a good chance that someone right wing is back in office after 4 years of Biden. When that happens they better hope it's not Trump 2 (or actual Trump).

I just don't understand the inability of people to see what happens when they give so much power away. That power does not disappear when the next POTUS appears.

These tech companies will 100% change with the wind, in fact, they already do it for China. They're only doing these things to garner favor from the current administration in hopes of staying away from any regulation. There's nothing altruistic about their behavior at all.

It's not ironic because they aren't the same thing and that isn't the only difference. In one case, you're banning someone over something they can't change about themselves and didn't choose. In the other case, you're banning someone because of an opinion they hold, that you disagree with. I do not consider those to be the same thing.

(Is the above also an argument that religious affiliation shouldn't be a protected class? Yes. Unpopular opinion that I hold, and I'll take the heat for it.)

Federal law prohibits discrimination based on: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and handicap. Not political belief or outlook on the absolute state of things.

And every one of those prohibitions were added on as time went by....

I asked this above and every response avoided it. OK, do you want to add "political affiliation or belief" to the CRA64? Do you understand the potential negative effects of that on people's Freedom of Association?

No, I actually don't understand how it'll have any different effect than the already protected list you had above.

I'm sure plenty of people dislike associating with lgbtq people and people of different race, religion etc.

"Dislike associating with" is very different from the situation you desire, which would be "forced to associate with people who have advocated for people like me to be killed". And that WILL happen. You are saying that a Jewish bar owner should be forced to serve a guy with a swastika hat on. You can rant about Godwin and edge cases all you want, but if we make political belief and opinion a protected class, you're forcing that bartender to serve a person who wants them dead.

With regards to other protected classes- gender, race, religion, country of origin- the people belonging to those classes are so broad that you cannot make generalizations about them like that. When I see a dude wearing a swastika, I can, in my opinion, make some pretty accurate generalizations about them. Again, complain about the case I picked if you want, but all other political beliefs are just a watered down version of this example. Pick a guy wearing a "kill all the white people" shirt if you want, I refuse to advocate for any law or proposal that would force a white guy to serve him a beer.

I don't know how you are going to define a protected class for conspiracy theorists who incite violence.

Are you referring to Antifa, BLM, or crazy Buffalo guy at the capitol who apparently almost took down the entire government by looking scary?

Yes. Twitter should be free to ban them too. Just because you're mad they don't doesn't mean the law is wrong.

Who said I was mad? I just wanted to make sure you weren't implying a double standard. Is that upsetting you for some reason?

Just to get a better understanding.... homosexuals, trans, black, muslim, asian etc. All free to ban too right?

Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal.

Muslims are members of a religion. Discrimination based on religion is illegal, same as above.

In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal.

"Opinion, political belief, or political affiliation" is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate against people for those reasons. And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. It is an expression of ones First Amendment Freedom of Association.

>Black and Asian are races. Discrimination based on race violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is illegal.

Yes and it wasn't illegal for a long time so what's your point here?

>In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal.

Thanks for agreeing that you can add protections to different classes.

> And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons.

No it's not "good" to discriminate in the way you're referring to it by shutting down what they say. It's good to present your differing opinion and put it out there so people can decide whether they agree. A lot people really thought discriminating based on skin color was "good" too.

You asked.me.if I thought we should be able to discriminate against certain groups. I said no, because it's illegal, and I don't want to get rid of that law.

If someone engages in speech I disagree with, I don't want the government to punish them for it. That does not mean I think bad speech should have no repercussions- I just think those repercussions should be in the private realm, in the hands of private citizens and private organizations.

In case it isn't clear, I'd sooner do away with all protected classes than add "Nazi" to the list.

There is no double standard. You can't ban black people from using your service based on race, but you can ban people who happen to be black for inciting violence with conspiracy theories.

>but you can ban people who happen to be black for inciting violence with conspiracy theories.

You seem to be confused about what the double standard is. They are not being banned and neither are the several dictators using the platforms to promote violence.

You intentionally confused what you mean by saying that blacks should be free to ban. They shouldn't be free to ban based on race.

The platforms are free to ban dictators in the US and other groups in the US that incite violence with conspiracy theories. That is well within their rights, and it is even a public service to do so.

As other have pointed out, you're describing protected classes. If you're advocating that political viewpoint should be a protected class, that's fine.

It's worth noting, though, that while I'm not allowed to ban Muslims from my bible study forum site, I'd be well within my rights to prohibit them (and anyone else) from evangelizing islam there.

I think I missed where politicians are a protected class.

Can government force companies (say, Parlor or Gab) to display posts from a protected class they wouldn't want to host? Forcing a platform to display women or black or other group's posts seems like it'd be equally anti-First Amendment to me.

Its an interesting question, the gay wedding cake case "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" was a first test and it seems to say probably not but the final judgement was based on religious freedom. Will probably need another case to determine.

Regarding my personal opinion, I think they should be allowed to deny service to who they want as its a core feature of the business. I think this is different than a say black / white restricted eating areas as the core feature of those business' is to feed people, not to facilitate personal race / sexuality based interactions. Just my opinion though I am sure there are edge cases that would make me pause.

It is my (layman, not-a-lawyer, possibly incorrect) understanding that, if they were to state that they did not allow a protect class to join and banned all members of that class from joining, they would encounter significant legal issues. Which would most likely be avoided by just enacting the policy silently (risky) or becoming an invite-only service (probably legal).

This bill wasn't specifically aimed at only politicians. Try reading the entire thing instead of listening to sound bites on CNN.

It’s really not contradictory at all.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/933/compelled-speec...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/f...

This just shows you don't understand what the 1st amendment is.

I understand it perfectly and your "it's a private business" retort doesn't hold up in my opinion.

Feel free to read my multiple other comments. The government can restrict your speech by means other than passing laws.

I'm not seeing contradictory statements?

- The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host

- and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would

These aren't contradictory. If a site does want to host a politician's speech then they can?

And if a site doesn't? The issue is one of compelled association. The First Amendment isn't just about choosing to be involved with who you want but also choosing not to be involved with who you don't want. This law abridges the rights of Facebook et al and potentially every website on the Internet to disassociate themselves from certain individuals.

I know. I agree. I didn't disagree with the original statement.

1st amendment is to prevent the government to punish you (for example jailing) for speaking about something the government doesn't want as well as forcing to say something you don't agree with (for example look at Navalny in Russia or Protasevich in Belarus).

Since corporations are also people as SCOTUS ruled they have similar protections.

Asking them to host content they otherwise don't approve might be like I would require you to say great things about Biden when you're a Trump supporter. It would suppress your freedom of speech, don't you think? It's like Russia requiring to say great things about Putin and Belarus about Lukashenko.