Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said: "Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That's why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms."

Here's the goliath problem: Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate -- a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn't like?

Will Christians who don't support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It's already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond. Their crime? Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won't tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/07/silicon_valley_morphing_into_the_morality_police_138851.html
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Here's the goliath problem: Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate -- a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn't like?
:confused:

What does the first amendment have to do with private digital platforms?
 

NextJen

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Good grief. Does anybody remember back in the 'old days' when we used to say, 'Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!'?

What has happened to us? We've become a bunch of pu$$**$.
 

GregV814

Active Member
The answer is quite simple. Transporter person, aka: Tommy Joe, Liberty Bacon, shall be appointed czar of all media and private wordage....
 

Kyle

Imagine No Democrats
PREMO Member
The answer is quite simple. Transporter person, aka: Tommy Joe, Liberty Bacon, shall be appointed czar of all media and private wordage....
First they will have to find someone with the patience to teach him the language.
 

transporter

Active Member
In a speech Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook said: "Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge. There is no time to get tied up in knots. That's why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms."

Here's the goliath problem: Who gets to define what words and phrases protected under the First Amendment constitute hate -- a catchall word that is often ascribed to any offensive speech someone simply doesn't like?

Will Christians who don't support abortion rights or having their tax dollars go toward Planned Parenthood be considered purveyors of hate for denying women the right to choose? Will millions of Americans who support legal immigration, as opposed to illegal immigration, be labeled xenophobes or racists and be banned from the digital world?

Yes and yes. How do we know? It's already happening, as scores of conservatives nationwide are being shadow banned and/or censored on social media, YouTube, Google and beyond. Their crime? Running afoul of leftist Silicon Valley executives who demand conformity of thought and simply won't tolerate any viewpoint that strays from their rigid political orthodoxy.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/07/silicon_valley_morphing_into_the_morality_police_138851.html
Comrade Gurps...have you or your author ever read the First Amendment? (Obviously Greg and Kyle haven't...but that doesn't come as news either). How many times have the words of 1A been pointed out on this forum?

Amendment I

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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

So...comrade...what law has Congress passed that allow Apple and Tim Cook to violate 1A?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I was reading the other day, and it occurs to me that the left really isn't in support of most of the Bill of Rights.
For example, they don't support freedom of the press, because they do everything they can to shut down
media outlets and venues that don't agree with them. Similar for freedom of speech. Now, while I *get* that
freedom of speech protects you from GOVERNMENT retaliation, what they oppose is the free exchange of ideas
in any venue that they can't control - and they've made efforts to codify their opposition.

We see this borne out when freedom of RELIGION occurs, and they try to use the courts to force the issue.
(Yes I know petitioning the government for grievances is another articulated right, but no one loses their chit
over it).

We know they oppose the second amendment. Whatever lip service they give, it's pointless to guarantee the
rights of people to bear arms - and then somehow construe it to NOT be for the people themselves. Historically -
from nations in the Far East to the isles to Britain - if you wish to subdue a population, you forbid the use of
weapons, and you make a capital crime to own or stockpile them.

They're not crazy about due process either (5th amendment). Especially if the accused has anything to
do with a crime of a sexual nature.

They positively HATE the ninth and tenth.

Worse - they "invent" rights, the right to a living wage, the right to an abortion, the right to health care,
the right to a job. None of these are in the Constitution unless you click your heels three times and say so.
They also have a big thing in common - they require someone to "give" it to you. Having the right to be
safe in your own home, to be able to buy or own a gun, to be able to say what you want, to not have to
testify against yourself, to be able to vote. These are *intrinsic* rights. You have them already. The Bill of
Rights exists to PROTECT them. The Democrats are inventing *granted* rights - the right to a college education,
the right to housing. Someone MUST *give* it to you.

Which means - someone may take it or withhold it. Especially if the government is the sole provider of it.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
In Packingham, a state statute made it a felony for registered sex offenders to go on certain social networking sites. The court ultimately held that the statute unconstitutionally restricted the sex offenders’ speech in violation of the first amendment.

In coming to this holding, the court emphasized that streets and parks are the “quintessential forum for the exercise of first amendment rights … [and] while in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a special sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace – the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in generally, and social media in particular”.

Put succinctly, the court called cyberspace and social media “the modern public square”. If the court means what it says and sticks with the modern-square analogy, then it’s these companies that become vulnerable to first amendment challenges by users.

There are also other analogies to draw with what Google is doing (eg providing users information) that would not entitle it first amendment protection. For instance, grocery stores also provide customers information through their shelf displays. And we all know the saying that “actions speak louder than words”. We say that because actions provide information, but we surely do not think each of us an editor protected by the first amendment every time we act.

So far, the debate over what role the internet giants are playing as they gather, remix, and disseminate information has been playing out in the courts. But with the growing interest in Congress in the way social media companies are shaping public discourse suggests these questions will soon be debated there as well, very possibly with an eye toward new regulations.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/09/google-facebook-first-amendment-protections
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The Supreme Court just announced that it will hear a case defining what is, or is not, a public forum. While the case specifically addresses public access cable channels, the Court’s decision may reverberate across the technology community.

The case, entitled Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck involves a public access cable channel. The petitioners in the case asked the Supreme Court to answer “an important—and unsettled—recurring question… Under what circumstances can a private entity… be deemed a state actor subject to claims under the First Amendment?”

The Constitution limits government authority. It does not apply to private companies. Some, though, insist on applying various Constitutional provisions, notably the First Amendment, to private actors such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, among other technology companies.

The direction the Supreme Court takes the Manhattan case will help define the limits of this type of argument. If the Court agrees with the Sixth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal, the definition of a “state actor” – or government actor – will be narrow and apply only in very limited circumstances. If the Court agrees with the Second Circuit, effectively overruling the Sixth and D.C. Circuit Courts, the definition of state actor will be broad and may provide an attack for those who argue that social media platforms are public forums.


https://www.alec.org/article/supreme-court-to-hear-free-speech-case-that-may-impact-technology-companies-and-social-media-platforms/
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Good grief. Does anybody remember back in the 'old days' when we used to say, 'Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!'?
:yeahthat: Been called so many things over the years, some deserved, some not...So what?? :lol:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Did you not read the article ?


in the strictest sense not much ... in the grander scheme of life Everything
I read the article. They're private companies. If we want to be heard, generate our own platforms.

I am for freedom. Even if I disagree with what free people do.
 
Top