Opinion: IMHO the 1st Amendment protecting freedom of speech obviously does that. There is no censorship of speaking. Or assembly, and then speaking to that assembled audience. The freedom of the press is slightly different IMHO in that it does not to me seem to apply to the individual Person, but to the Entity i.e. "the Press" which is an organization. An organization which "Presses" in ink, or today in cyber-ink the written word. The Press had been a for profit business, and I believe today that is still the case. Possibly with the few exceptions of non-profit publications. However the Social Platform giants like Google, Meta, et.al are certainly for profit companies. When the 1st Amendment was written authors who desired to have their written works read had need to have them published in The Press and needed to court their favor, or pay for publication. Today it is not quite the same case. The Social Platform companies have opened their "Press" to both paying subscribers, and like pimps to get addicts hooked to "free subscribers-with offer of superior paid subscription". But it is these "free" subscribers who are claiming unlimited access to "The Press". Which is not their Press, but the Press of the Entity which operates it. In the day the 1st Amendment was written Owners of The Press were free to choose what to publish. Nothing has changed. IMHO. IF "the free subscriber" who is claiming a denied Right of Free Press is to be believed, it must follow that All Citizens MUST be provided Press by the Government, which will be absolutely free from censorship. I do not see this happening anytime soon. So the mercantile marketplace model that Founded the 1st Amendment is still the precedent for today. What the true Freedom that is in question is: Freedom of Access to the Press. i.e. Why can't I as a Citizen have the same voice as CNN, Facebook, Fox News, et.al. The disproportionate weight of ideas, inner-workings of Government, social sentiment, success or failures of public and private enterprises is all in the hands of a few profit driven and politically driven persons. Just because "that's the way it's always been" and "that's the way 'the marketplace' works" is the explanation for our conundrum does not make it the way it should be, or could be. Freedom of the Press is a Right of All Citizens. Access to Our Right is a Right also.
U.S. Supreme Court seeks Biden administration view on Florida, Texas social media laws
Jan 23 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in on whether it should review Republican-backed laws in Texas and Florida that would undercut efforts by major social media companies to curb content deemed objectionable on their platforms, actions the states call impermissible censorship.
The justices are considering taking up two cases involving challenges to the state laws - both currently blocked - brought by technology industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association that count Twitter , Meta Platforms Inc's (META.O) Facebook and Alphabet Inc's YouTube (GOOGL.O) as members.
Supporters of the laws have argued that social media platforms have silenced conservative voices while advocates for the judicious use of curbing content have argued for the need to stop misinformation and advocacy for extremist causes.
Florida is seeking to revive its law after a lower court ruled largely against it, while the industry groups are appealing a separate lower court decision upholding the Texas law, which the Supreme Court had blocked at an earlier stage of the case.
The cases would test the argument made by the industry groups that the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech protects the right of social media platforms to editorial discretion and prohibits the government from forcing them to publish and disseminate content against their will, or disclose internal content moderation processes.
The companies have said that without editorial discretion their websites would be overrun with spam, bullying, extremism and hate speech.
The Republican states passed their laws in 2021 in response to a view articulated by many U.S. conservatives and right-wing commentators that large technology companies - sometimes called Big Tech - regularly suppress their views.
These people cite as an example Twitter's move to permanently suspend of Republican then-President Donald Trump from the platform in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of his supporters, with the company citing "the risk of further incitement of violence."
Florida's law requires platforms with at least 100 million users to "host some speech that they might otherwise prefer not to host" by disclosing censorship rules and applying them "in a consistent manner among its users." It also prohibits the banning of any political candidates.
The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint."
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 upheld the Texas law, concluding that it "chills no speech whatsoever. To the extent it chills anything, it chills censorship."
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 rejected most of Florida's law but upheld the legality of the provisions requiring websites to make certain disclosures, including content moderation standards and rule changes.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Comments