[USA] SJEDINJENE AMERIČKE DRŽAVE - unutrašnja politika i uticaj na svetska kretanja

[Helena]

5 hours ago, Cyrus Smith said:

Već je napisano da je ovo samo najnoviji proboj u višedecenijskom rovovskom ratu oko ovog pitanja. Odluka još nije donešena ali je nacrt  neko blizak sudu dostavio medijima najverovatnije iz političkih razloga. Demokrate loše stoje po anketama i smatraju da će im ovo pitanje poboljšati šanse na predstojećim izborima. 

 

Danas sam naleteo na podatke koji su, ako su tačni, oborili moje neinformisano mišljenje pokupljeno iz mainstream medija da je USA nazadna patrijarhalna tvorevina koja svodi žene na hodajuće materice:

 

izvor

 

 

Dakle, ti ljudi se ustvari bore za vlast preko prava žena jer loše stoje po anketama, plus Aglelia piše da je i senillni privatno protiv izbora...pa lepo, moj utisak o radikalizaciji se samo pojačao...

 

I šta uopšte znači rečenica Nije to bas tako prosto da je doslo do radikalizacije. To je vec 50 godina stalno pitanje oko koga se gloze. Samo je usled politicke situacije sad aktuelno toliko. 

 

Zbog rata ili nečeg trećeg?

[DJORDJE]

Gadna vremena dolaze, mozda je sve to zbog glasina da ce Vucic morati da abortira Kosmet.

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, Baby said:

 

Cenzura jeste oduzimanje slobode govora, ali jbt ajd ponovo 70ti put... Sloboda govora zagarantovana prvim amandmanom se odnosi na cenzurisanje od strane drzavnog aparata...

 

Pa iskreno, niko se nije podigao i rekao da je oduzimanje slobode govora bilo kada su banovani aktivisti Ocupy sa twittera, nego su se uzjogunili kada su banovana dva idiota: Tramp i ona teoreticarka zavere MTG... odjednom postaje pitanje bez opstanka... 

Ti i dalje ignorises sta ti govorim. Cenzurisanje je sada mainstream. Sada je od strane vlasti dok je prethodno bilo od centra moci.

 

Ja 10 godina govorim da je sloboda govora ugrozena, i da postaje sve gore - a tvoj odgovor je - dok neko nije banova nekog teoritacar zavere niko nista nije rekao....

 

Kako mislis niko nista nije rekao? mene su otvoreno ovde nazivali neo-naci zato sto sam rekla da je sloboda govora ugrozena.

1 hour ago, Helena said:

Dakle, ti ljudi se ustvari bore za vlast preko prava žena jer loše stoje po anketama, plus Aglelia piše da je i senillni privatno protiv izbora...pa lepo, moj utisak o radikalizaciji se samo pojačao...

 

I šta uopšte znači rečenica Nije to bas tako prosto da je doslo do radikalizacije. To je vec 50 godina stalno pitanje oko koga se gloze. Samo je usled politicke situacije sad aktuelno toliko. 

 

Zbog rata ili nečeg trećeg?

Zbog politicke situacije u kojoj dems gube izbore - daj citaj. 50 godina traje ta borba, sad su je samo mediji i politicke strukture gurnule u prvi plan.

 

to je kad od muve napravis slona, kako je to neka radikalizacija. a nije. Sve je isto zadnjih 50 godina.

[DJORDJE]

8 minutes ago, Angelia said:

to je kad od muve napravis slona, kako je to neka radikalizacija. a nije. Sve je isto zadnjih 50 godina.

Pravo na izbor nije muva od slona, ja ne ubrajam sebe u levicare, ali definitivno ne prihvatam da drzava moze da odredjuje zenama da li ce roditi dete. Ja sam cak i OK sa time da se to pitanje prepusti drzavama, mada favorizuje one sa dubljim dzepom, ali ta sranja koja je izglasao TX o privatnim tuzbama je zloupotreba prava.

Edited May 6, 2022 by DJORDJE

[Angelia]

1 minute ago, DJORDJE said:

Pravo na izbor nije muva od slona, ja ne ubrajam sebe u levicare, ali definitivno ne prihvatam da drzava moze da odredjuje zenama da li ce roditi dete. Ja sam cak i OK sa time da se to pitanje prepusti drzavama, mada faritizuje one sa dubljim dzepom, ali ta sranja koja je izglasao TX o privatnim tuzbama je zloupotreba prava.

Slazem se. vec sam ranije rekla da sam pro-choice specijalno do odredjenog limita. 26 nedelja mi je vec gross.

 

Mislim da si pogresno razumeo komentar da od muve prave slona, ne mislim da je nebitno, ali nije bas ovoliko bitno.

[Div]

5 hours ago, Angelia said:

Quote

U slučaju Tvitera, sudara se nečije pravo da iznosi svoje mišljenje i pravo vlasnika da uređuje platformu po svom nahođenju, Tviter može da me banuje ali ne može da mi zabrani da izađem u park i uzvikujem svoje poruke, da ih objavim na drugom mediju ili drugoj platformi, da napravim svoju, ili kupim postojeću platformu i postavim svoja pravila, da slobode i ograničenja sprovodim o svom trošku. Ne koristi Tviter iako imam nalog, ne znam kako tehnički funkcioniše, po nekim komentarima mi se čini da vlasnik naloga može da banuje pratioce, nepoželjne komentatore, koliko to zadire u opšte pravo.

Nisi u pravu. U slucaju twittera problem nastaje kad deluju kao agent vlasti. Tj posto drzava ne moze da cenzurise po zakonu, oni kazu twitteru da to urade ili ....

takvi zahtevi su dolazili direktno iz Bele kuce i Kongresa. Znaci cenzura by proxy 

 

Ako je tako, to je slučaj za sud, sudstvo je u USA nezavisno, može da stavi van snage odluke vlasti, da odredu kaznu. Opet, ako je Tviter radio po nalogu države a suprotno ugovoru, objavljenim pravilima, sa korisnicima.

5 hours ago, Angelia said:

Na kom nivou univerzalana prava? Drzave, opstine, federacije, NATO alijanse? kontinenta mozda ili sveta? I u kojoj meri, evropskoj? 

 

Na nivou sveta, za početak na nivou, u konkretnom slučaju, savezne države. 

[Angelia]

Just now, Div said:

 

Ako je tako, to je slučaj za sud, sudstvo je u USA nezavisno, može da stavi van snage odluke vlasti, da odredu kaznu. Opet, ako je Tviter radio po nalogu države a suprotno ugovoru, objavljenim pravilima, sa korisnicima.

Trenutno, kadija te tuzi kadija ti sudi.

 

Just now, Div said:

Na nivou sveta, za početak na nivou, u konkretnom slučaju, savezne države. 

ok, gde? u SR koliko se secam limit je 12 nedelja, sa izuzecima koji su na 16 nedelja gde zahteva konzilijum lekara.

 

Roe vs Wade na 26 nedelja. EU je uglavnom negde na 12-16 nedelja. Gde je ok?

[DJORDJE]

7 minutes ago, Angelia said:

ok, gde? u SR koliko se secam limit je 12 nedelja, sa izuzecima koji su na 16 nedelja gde zahteva konzilijum lekara.

 

Roe vs Wade na 26 nedelja. EU je uglavnom negde na 12-16 nedelja. Gde je ok?

To je po zakonu, a u praksi je malo vise fleksibilno, ne samo u SAD, vec i u evropskim zemljama. Zena mi je lekar, doduse druge specijalnosti, ali ipak ima vise informacija iz prakse nego ja. Ko je u okviru 12 ili 26 nedelja je stvar lekarskog misljenja. To je kao i oko recimo procenta zacepljenosti arterija, sto je njena specijalnost. Da li je 60% gde se ne dira ili je 80% gde se ubacuju stentovi, radi bapas, je stvar procene.

[Div]

13 minutes ago, Angelia said:

Trenutno, kadija te tuzi kadija ti sudi.

 

Pa pr bi bilo kadija je tužen kadija sudi, nego mislim da ima dovoljno medija i mreža u USA spremnih da do sitnice istraže slučaj i objave činjenice da nisud ne bi imao kuda.

 

13 minutes ago, Angelia said:

ok, gde? u SR koliko se secam limit je 12 nedelja, sa izuzecima koji su na 16 nedelja gde zahteva konzilijum lekara.

 

Roe vs Wade na 26 nedelja. EU je uglavnom negde na 12-16 nedelja. Gde je ok?

 

Ne znam, to je stvar struke, medicine, i to znanje treba pretočiti i u pravne norme, UN donose rezolucije o mnogim pojedinačnim pravima, mogli bi i pravima i zaštiti žena.

[Angelia]

24 minutes ago, Div said:

 

Ako je tako, to je slučaj za sud, sudstvo je u USA nezavisno, može da stavi van snage odluke vlasti, da odredu kaznu. Opet, ako je Tviter radio po nalogu države a suprotno ugovoru, objavljenim pravilima, sa korisnicima.

 

Na nivou sveta, za početak na nivou, u konkretnom slučaju, savezne države. 

Premies na 24 nedelje imaju 50% sanse prezivljavanja. Ja sam stvarno pro-choice, ali kada to postaje "udavio si bebu"

 

5 minutes ago, DJORDJE said:

To je po zakonu, a u praksi je malo vise fleksibilno, ne samo u SAD, vec i u evropskim zemljama. Zena mi je lekar, doduse druge specijalnosti, ali ipak ima vise informacija iz prakse nego ja. Ko je u okviru 12 ili 26 nedelja je stvar lekarskog misljenja. To je kao i oko recimo procenta zacepljenosti arterija, sto je njena specijalnost. Da li je 60% gde se ne dira ili je 80% gde se ubacuju stentovi, radi bapas, je stvar procene.

Bilo sta preko 16 nedelja bi trebao da bude specijalni slucaj, a preko 20 bi zahtevao konzilijum.

 

Nakon 50 godina, Roe vs Wade na 26 nedelja, i bez bilo kakve restrikcije, nema smisla.

[DJORDJE]

14 minutes ago, Div said:

Ne znam, to je stvar struke, medicine, i to znanje treba pretočiti i u pravne norme, UN donose rezolucije o mnogim pojedinačnim pravima, mogli bi i pravima i zaštiti žena.

Ko se jos obraca paznju o UN rezolucijama. Davno sam upozno Nemicu koja je je 80tih isla na abortus u YU. To je tada bila uobicajena praksa, mada za mene novost. Najcesce se islo u Sloveniju ili Zagreb koji su bili najblizi. Ako pogledas taj aspekt prava, bili smo ispred Zapadne Nemacke, a onda 40 godina kasnije procitas o kradji dece iz bolnica, pogotovo one u Narodnog Fronta. Na zalost, matorog je vec uveliko uhvatila demencija kada su se pojavili clanci o tome, a i danas dan me zanima da li je tadanji SUP vodio istragu o tome. Prijave su sigurno postojale.

Edited May 6, 2022 by DJORDJE

[Div]

9 minutes ago, DJORDJE said:

Ko se jos obraca paznju o UN rezolucijama

 

Ipak, bilo bi dobro da barem postoje.

 

9 minutes ago, DJORDJE said:

Davno sam upozno Nemicu koja je je 80tih isla na abortus u YU. To je tada bila uobicajena praksa, mada za mene novost. Najcesce se islo u Sloveniju ili Zagreb koji su bili najblizi. Ako pogledas taj aspekt prava, bili smo ispred Zapadne Nemacke, a onda 40 godina kasnije procitas o kradji dece iz bolnica, pogotovo one u Narodnog Fronta. Na zalost, matorog je vec uveliko uhvatila demencija kada su se pojavili clanci o tome, a i danas dan me zanima da li je tadanji SUP vodio istragu o tome. Prijave su sigurno postojale.

 

Da, znam da je kod nas bilo liberalnije nego u većini zemalja sveta, da su rađeni i neneki možda previše rizični abortusi. Znam i da je prilično raširena bila i praksa ilegalnih pobačaja, radili su ih i stručnjaci i potpuni diletanti a da je tek poneki slučaj dospeo do istrage i suda.
Trgovina bebama nije direktno povezana sa pravima na abortus, ne znam na šta ciljaš, moralnost struke, možda? Takođe, ne znam da se priča javno pojavila bilo gde za života matorog, možda sam negde prezupčio, ja sam ubeđen da je pisanje počelo početkom osamdesetih. I, tada nisam verovao da je nešto tako moguće, gde bi to kod nas, nismo mi Amerika.

 

 

 

 

[DJORDJE]

20 minutes ago, Div said:

Trgovina bebama nije direktno povezana sa pravima na abortus, ne znam na šta ciljaš, moralnost struke, možda? Takođe, ne znam da se priča javno pojavila bilo gde za života matorog, možda sam negde prezupčio, ja sam ubeđen da je pisanje počelo početkom osamdesetih. I, tada nisam verovao da je nešto tako moguće, gde bi to kod nas, nismo mi Amerika.

 

Iskreno nemam  cilj. Samo kazem da smo u jednom trenutku bili na visem civilizacijskom nivou i od Zapadne Nemacke, dok smo imali problem sa masovnom kradjom dece.

Postojale su mozda price tipa "Tito je licno ubio Jovanku" , ali toga nije bilo po medijima. Ja sam prvi put za to cuo pre mozda 5-6 godina i tada shvatio da je to problem koji postoji vec decenijama,  ljudi su podnosili prijave , a da nisu dobijali nikakav odgovor na iste.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by DJORDJE

[Angelia]

21 minutes ago, DJORDJE said:

Iskreno nemam  cilj. Samo kazem da smo u jednom trenutku bili na visem civilizacijskom nivou i od Zapadne Nemacke, dok smo imali problem sa masovnom kradjom dece.

Postojale su mozda price tipa "Tito je licno ubio Jovanku" , ali toga nije bilo po medijima. Ja sam prvi put za to cuo pre mozda 5-6 godina i tada shvatio da je to problem koji postoji vec decenijama,  ljudi su podnosili prijave , a da nisu dobijali nikakav odgovor na iste.

 

Da li smo bili na visem civilizacijskom nivou ili nismo isli u korak sa naukom? Mene da si pitao pre 20 godina ja bi bila Roe vs Wade, najvise dostignuce civilizacije. Danas sa napredkom medicine...da li je stvarno? Nisam dovoljno konzervativna

Edited May 6, 2022 by Angelia

[Cyrus Smith]

5 hours ago, Baby said:

 

Pa pistali su i desnicari kada su im reprezentatici banovani. O tome ti i govorim, da svi piste i svi vuku na svoju stranu. Svako se cese gde ga svrbi. 

A isti ti desnicari koji su pistali pa otvarali nove SLOBODNE platforme su banovali clanove samo zbog uvredljivog nick-a.... 

 

 

Ok, samo terate svoje. Ja mislim da sam bila jasna, sloboda postoji, citirala sam vec...

 

The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.

 

 

 

 

Ne radi se ovde o levici i desnici nego o principu koji nije nekakva zastarela tradicija nego važan deo efikasnosti modernih društava. Takođe, umesto što sve prebacuješ na lični teren mogla bi da odgovoriš zašto tzv. mainstrem mediji toliko pište o preuzimanju jedne privatne kompanije. 

 

4 hours ago, Helena said:

Dakle, ti ljudi se ustvari bore za vlast preko prava žena jer loše stoje po anketama, plus Aglelia piše da je i senillni privatno protiv izbora...pa lepo, moj utisak o radikalizaciji se samo pojačao...

 

I šta uopšte znači rečenica Nije to bas tako prosto da je doslo do radikalizacije. To je vec 50 godina stalno pitanje oko koga se gloze. Samo je usled politicke situacije sad aktuelno toliko. 

 

Zbog rata ili nečeg trećeg?

Za prvi bold (koji je moj), to rade rutinski i odavno. Roe v. Wade je mogao biti kodifikovan u zakon, umesto sudske odluke. Imao je Obama i kongres i senat, obećao je da će mu to biti prioritet pa zaboravio:

 

 

 

3 hours ago, DJORDJE said:

 ali ta sranja koja je izglasao TX o privatnim tuzbama je zloupotreba prava.

Apsolutno. Klatno lako ode na drugu stranu.

 

Postoje sranja i sa druge strane uvođenjem definicije da fetus nije ljudsko biće do trenutka rođenja pa imamo te 4 države koje, prema linkovanom članku, dozvoljavaju abortus do 40. nedelje. Mrzi me da tražim link gde se vidi kako, mislim u Virdžiniji, pritiskaju predlagačicu sličnog zakona pitanjem da li žena kod koje su počeli trudovi po njoj ima pravo na abortus na šta odgovara da ima. U vreme interneta ko hoće može da nađe na šta liči pobačaj i mlađeg fetusa. Trigger warning: noćne more garantovane.

 

Malo je to to komplikovanije od binarnog ima/nema pravo.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Cyrus Smith
slovo, obrisan višak

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

6 hours ago, Cyrus Smith said:

Ne radi se ovde o levici i desnici nego o principu koji nije nekakva zastarela tradicija nego važan deo efikasnosti modernih društava. Takođe, umesto što sve prebacuješ na lični teren mogla bi da odgovoriš zašto tzv. mainstrem mediji toliko pište o preuzimanju jedne privatne kompanije. 

 

 

Ja stvarno mislim da sam bila jasna u nekoliko navrata i evo, sada cu ponoviti opet. 

 

Cyrus, radi se o levici i desnici. Slobodan govor iz prvog amandmana nije pipnut, stoji kako je stajao. Slobodan govor u socijalnim medijima je takav kakav je... u skladu sa pravilnikom kuce. Pravila kuce odredjuje uprava kuce, a uprava kuce je u US na zalost (ali to je deo zivota) skoro u 99% politicki opredeljena. 

 

Ja se ne zalim sto je Musk kupio twitter, kakve ima veze za mene ko je vlasnik ako ja ne krsim pravila? Postovi tamo mi se svidjaju, ne svidjaju, sa nekima se slazem, sa drugima ne... tako bilo, tako ce i biti. Ali treba imati u uvidu da ni taj Musk nije nevinasce po pitanju slobode govora koje vi ovde stavljate pod princip. On je banovao ljude sa teslinog bloga i zaustavljao im kupovinu ako su kritikovali njegov auto. Na drugu stranu Truth social koji se reklamira kao apsolutno slobodan je banovao ljude zbog nika. 

 

Samo to vam govorim. U praksi nema te apsolutne slobode na socijalnim medijima, uopsteno na medijima, nece ni biti jer niko nece haos u svojoj kuci. Druga stvar je sto svi vole samo svoju slobodu govora, ali im se bas ne dopada tudja koja se kosi sa njihovim idejama. Covek je covek i nista se tu ne menja. 

 

Zato sam te i pitala a ti mi nisi dao odgovor, gde je granica te slobode?

Jer sloboda mora da ima granicu onog momenta kada ugrozava tudju slobodu. Tvoja sloboda je moja sloboda, ako nemam limit i zadjem u tvoju slobodu, da li je to sloboda i za koga?

[Angelia]

14 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

 

Zato sam te i pitala a ti mi nisi dao odgovor, gde je granica te slobode?

Jer sloboda mora da ima granicu onog momenta kada ugrozava tudju slobodu. Tvoja sloboda je moja sloboda, ako nemam limit i zadjem u tvoju slobodu, da li je to sloboda i za koga?

Imas zakon da definise granicu.

[Klotzen]

https://theweek.com/donald-trump/1013308/trump-wanted-to-quietly-bomb-mexico-seriously-ex-defense-secretary-mark-esper

 

Trump hteo "tajno" da bombarduje narko kartele u Meksiku

 

 

[Cyrus Smith]

36 minutes ago, Baby said:

Ja se ne zalim sto je Musk kupio twitter

Ti lično si ostala principijelna ali mediji i establišment se deru do neba. Meni dovoljno.

 

Kao i kod svega ostalog ne postoji jasna granica slobode koju treba dozvoliti u raspravi. ja lično želim što manje ograničenja ali mi je jasno da potpuno nemoderisani prostor ima tendenciju da se pretvori u tribalističku anarhiju. Zadovoljio bi se Maskovim da je granica tamo gde je zakon i da ne treba ići preko toga.

[Cyrus Smith]

Neverovatno je koliko su i jedan i drugi politički blok u Americi taoci ekstremista u sopstvenim redovima. Ne znam da li kalkulacija demokrata da mogu nešto postići objavljivanjem priče o mogućem padu Roe v. Wade imAa osnove ali i to (možda) kvare tako što više i ne znaju reč za osobe koje rađaju i ponekad idu na abortuse:

 

 

Sa druge strane guvener Kalifornije je izgleda diplomirao biologiju pa se osmelio da izjavi neki ekvivalent "da muškarcima treba abortus bio bi dostupan na svakom ćošku" argumenta. Ili samo za definiciju žene treba biti biolog? Transfobija much? Muškarci ipak ne mogu zatrudneti? Teško je biti woke demokrata u zadnje vreme:

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Cyrus Smith
pojašnjenje

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

40 minutes ago, Cyrus Smith said:

Ti lično si ostala principijelna ali mediji i establišment se deru do neba. Meni dovoljno.

 

Kao i kod svega ostalog ne postoji jasna granica slobode koju treba dozvoliti u raspravi. ja lično želim što manje ograničenja ali mi je jasno da potpuno nemoderisani prostor ima tendenciju da se pretvori u tribalističku anarhiju. Zadovoljio bi se Maskovim da je granica tamo gde je zakon i da ne treba ići preko toga.

 

Cyrus, evo potrudila sam se da ti nadjem pravno objasnjenje ovog o cemu mi ovde raspravljamo. Budi ljubazan, nemoj da te mrzi, procitaj:

https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/limits-free-speech-social-media

 

Spoiler

he public seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the true extent of  “freedom of speech” under the First Amendment. Who can or cannot restrict free speech? What type of speech can be restricted? And how does this apply to speech restrictions on social media platforms which have become so prevalent?

Lawsuits alleging free speech violations against social media companies are routinely dismissed.  The primary grounds for these dismissals are that social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Consequently, those who post on social media platforms do not have the right to free speech on these social media platforms. This article will attempt to explain the relationship between social media and free speech so that we can understand why. 

Who Can Restrict Free Speech - State v. Private Actors

The overarching principle of free speech under the First Amendment is that its reach is limited to protections against restrictions on speech made by the government.1 The text of the First Amendment itself only prevents Congress (i.e., U.S. Congress) from making laws that restrict the freedom of speech. This protection is extended to the states, and to local governments, through the State Action  Doctrine and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 However, under the State Action Doctrine, First Amendment restrictions traditionally do not extend to private parties, such as individuals or private companies.3 In other words, a private person or private company (such as a social media company) cannot violate your constitutional free speech rights, only the government can do so. That is, unless the private party attempting to restrict speech qualifies for one of the three exceptions to the State Action Doctrine.

The first exception is when an action to restrict speech by a private party involves a function that is traditionally and exclusively reserved for the State, which is known as the Exclusive Public Function Doctrine.4 The Exclusive Public Function Doctrine is limited to extreme situations where a private party has stood in the shoes of the state. For example, when a private company has been given control of a previously public sidewalk or park, it has been found that the private company is performing municipal powers exclusively performed by the state.5 Courts have repeatedly refused efforts to characterize the provision of a news website or social media platform as a public function that was traditionally and exclusively performed by the government.6

The second and third exceptions, which are related to each other, are the entanglement and entwinement exceptions. The entanglement exception applies when an action to restrict speech by a private party is such that the state has significantly involved, or entangled itself, with the private action.7 This occurs when the “power, property, and prestige” of the government is behind the private action, and where there is evidence of the overt, significant assistance of state officials.8 The entwinement exception applies when an action of a private party can be treated as though the action were of the government itself (i.e., overlapping identities).9 These exceptions are rarely used in free speech cases and apply in very limited situations, typically in cases involving the Equal Protection or Establishment Clauses which are not relevant in most social media contexts. 

Where Can Speech Be Restricted - Public v. Private Forums

When speech takes place in a public forum, that speech can qualify for protection of speech under the First Amendment.10 This is known as the Public Forum Doctrine. While there is no constitutional right for a person to express their views in a private facility (such as a shopping center),11 speech that takes place in a traditional or designated public forum for expressive activity (such as a sidewalk or park on government property) is protected and only limited restrictions of speech are allowed.12 A designated public forum can only be created when the government intentionally opens a nontraditional forum for public discourse.13 A private forum (such as a grocery store or comedy club), however, does not perform a public function by merely inviting public discourse on its property.14

Social media platforms are often characterized as a digital public square. Yet, courts have repeatedly refused arguments that social media platforms are public forums subject to the First Amendment.15 This reasoning is justified because their networks are private, and merely hosting speech by others does not convert a private platform to a public forum.16 Only in limited cases have social media sites been found by courts to qualify as a public forum. For example, in a recent case, an appellate court held that the official Twitter page operated by then President Donald Trump was a designated public forum. As a result, government officials could not engage in viewpoint discrimination by blocking individuals from posting comments with critical views of the President and his policies.17 In contrast, a private person or organization’s social media page is not a public forum and is not protected by the First Amendment.

Social media platforms may also be analogized to newspapers when they attempt to exercise editorial control and judgment over the publishing of users’ posts. In this scenario, the Supreme Court has held that newspapers exercise the freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment and cannot be forced to print content they would not otherwise include.18 This is due to a newspaper’s ability to exercise editorial control and judgment, including making decisions on the size and content of the paper, along with treatment of public issues and public officials (whether such treatment is fair or unfair). This leads us to next examine what protections are afforded to social medial companies for content posted by their users on their platforms. 

Social Media’s Immunity for User Content - 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), codified as 47 U.S.C. § 230, was enacted in response to a court decision ruling that an internet service provider, Prodigy, was considered a “publisher” of defamatory statements that a third party had posted on a bulletin board hosted and moderated by Prodigy, and Prodigy could therefore be subject to a civil lawsuit for libel.19 Sec. 230(c)(1) remedies this by providing immunity to internet service providers from lawsuits that attempt to make them liable for the user content posted on their sites.20 Social media companies, which are currently considered to be service providers under Sec. 230(c)(1), are broadly protected from responsibility for what users say while using their social media platforms.21

The next question that logically follows is whether a social media company can restrict or exercise editorial control over content on its platform. Sec. 230(c)(2) of the CDA answers this, by precluding liability for decisions to remove or restrict access to content that the provider deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”22 Social media platforms therefore set their policies and Terms and Conditions to state that they can remove violent, obscene, or offensive content and can ban users who post or promote such content. For example, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have banned terrorist groups that post material promoting violence or violent extremism, and have also banned ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah solely because of their status as U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations. As was recently seen following the 2020 Presidential election, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube (Google), Reddit, and Twitch (Amazon) also justified their suspension of the accounts of President Trump and some of his supporters under Sec. 230(c)(2) for continuing to post misinformation, hate speech, and inflammatory content about the election. 

What are Permissible Restrictions on Speech

As discussed above, if a social media company chooses to remove content from its platform in accordance with its designated policies, that removal does not raise a First Amendment issue and there is no civil liability as a result of Sec. 230 of the CDA. But what if precedent was to be reversed, and a social media platform was declared a state actor or a public forum such that the First Amendment would apply to them? Or what if Sec. 230 was repealed to make social media companies liable for their users’ posts when they attempt to moderate the content? If either were to happen, the type of speech being restricted would play a significant role in its permissibility. 

Restrictions of speech in a public forum are permissible if they are appropriately limited in time, place, and manner.23 Speech can be restricted under a less demanding standard when it is done without regard to the content of the speech or the speaker’s point of view.24 A content-neutral restriction on speech, for example, would be prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of any school building while classes are in session without regard to their message, whereas a content-based restriction would be one that allows picketing only if the school is involved in a labor dispute.25 Other reasonable content-neutral regulations include regulating noise by limiting decibels, or the hours and place of public discussion.26 It is unlikely that content-neutral restrictions could be implemented to effectively regulate violent, obscene, or offensive content on social media platforms, which leaves us with content-based restrictions that would be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Content-based restrictions in a public forum require that there must be a compelling government interest in the restriction and the least restrictive means are employed to further that interest.27

It is important to emphasize that the First Amendment “does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired.”28 For that reason, if there is an alternative channel of communication for the desired speech, it may be a suitable alternative even if it is not a perfect substitute for the preferred forum that has been denied.29 For example, if a user were blocked from posting on a social media platform, alternative channels to make the desired speech might include other social media platforms or different forms of media. Other possibilities might include remedial steps for regaining posting privileges, such as imposing temporary posting suspensions that can be lifted over time or requiring the poster to agree to specific posting restraints before regaining unrestricted access.

What Types of Content-Based Restrictions are Permitted

It is also worthwhile to review the types of protected and unprotected content-based speech to understand the extent of the speech protected by the First Amendment, particularly in view of the recent unrest reflected on social media following the 2020 election. Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted within a few traditionally recognized categories of expression.30

Misinformation, Defamation, Fraud, Perjury, Government Officials

Misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information. False statements of fact about a public concern or public officials are protected from censorship under the First Amendment, unless the statement is made with knowledge or reckless disregard that it was a false statement made and/or made with intent to harm.31 It is not safe to assume that false statements can be made on social media platforms without impunity. There can be civil liability imposed for defamatory statements, which are knowingly false statements of fact published without authorization that damage others’ reputations (e.g., libel if written and slander if spoken), and for fraud, which is a false statement of fact made with the intent to cause the hearer to alter their position.32 At the time of this writing, statements pushing claims of election fraud following the 2020 election made by various public figures and news commentators on television and social media are being pursued for defamation by electronic voting machine manufacturers Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. 

Hate Speech and Speech that Incites Imminent Lawless Action

The First Amendment generally protects even hate or racist speech from government censorship. However, speech advocating the use of force is unprotected when it incites or is likely to incite imminent lawless action.33 Likewise, speech that is considered an incitement to riot, which creates a clear and present danger of causing a disturbance of the peace, is also not protected by the First Amendment.34“Fighting words” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are unprotected and may be punished or prohibited.35

Harassment and True Threats of Violence

Harassment refers to unwanted behavior that makes someone feel degraded, humiliated, or offended. Harassing someone for the purpose of irritating or tormenting them is protected from censorship by the First Amendment. However, harassment that goes so far as to present a “true threat of violence,” is an exception not protected by the First Amendment and is banned by all social media platforms. True threats of violence directed at a person or group of persons that have “the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death” are unprotected, regardless of whether the speaker actually intends to carry out the threat.36 Intimidation “is a type of true threat,” and would likewise be unprotected by the First Amendment.37

Advertisements

Advertising, which is a type of commercial speech, receives only limited protection under the First Amendment.38 If an advertisement is shown to be misleading or unlawful, a restriction on that speech is permissible.39 A website or social medial platform, much like a newspaper, cannot be forced to print advertisements in contravention of their right of editorial control.40

Conclusion

Current legal precedent conclusively establishes that social media users do not have a right to free speech on private social media platforms. Social media platforms are allowed to remove offending content when done in accordance with their stated policies as permitted by Sec. 230 of the CDA, and that removal does not raise a justiciable First Amendment issue or a real risk of civil liability. The users, on the other hand, put themselves at risk of being banned for making violent, obscene, or offensive content on social media, and may even expose themselves to civil liability for making false, misleading, or violence-inciting statements.

Sources

1 Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1757 (2017).

2  United States Constitution, 1st Amendment, (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) (applying the freedom of speech from the 1st Amendment to the states by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state”).

3  Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 (1883) (“t is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [Fourteenth] amendment.”); see also Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948) (“[the Constitution] erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful”).

4 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974).

5 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 505–09 (1946) (a private entity operating a company town is a state actor and must abide by the First Amendment); but see Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972) (confining Marsh’s holding to the unique and rare context of “company town” and other situations where the private actor “performs the full spectrum of municipal powers); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (holding public elections is an exclusive public function).

6 See. e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-06064-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51000, at *26 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018), affirmed 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020); Quigley v. Yelp, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103771, at *4 (“The dissemination of news and fostering of debate cannot be said to have been traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the government.”); see Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019) (“merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function”); Howard v. Am. Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 754 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing internet service, web portal, and emails was not “an instrument or agent of the government.”).

7 Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 173 (1972).

8 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).

9 Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 298, 303 (2001).

10 Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (There are three categories of government property for purposes of access for expressive activities: (1) traditional, or quintessential, public forums (such as a sidewalk or park on government property) in which content-based restrictions on speech are highly suspect; (2) limited, or designated, public forums in which reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible and content-based prohibitions must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest; and (3) nonpublic forums in which the government can reserve the forum for its intended purposes with reasonable regulations on speech that do not discriminate based on opposition to the speaker’s viewpoint.).

11  PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980); Prager, 951 F.3d at 998.

12  Perry, 460 U.S. at 37.

13 Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985).

14 Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998.

15 See, e.g., Prager, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51000, at *25–26 (“Defendants do not appear to be at all like, for example, a private corporation . . . that has been given control over a previously public sidewalk or park . . . .”); Estavillo v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. Inc., No. C-09-03007 RMW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86821, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2009); Nyabwa v. Facebook, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13981, Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-24, *2 (S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 26, 2018) (dismissing lawsuit filed by a private individual against Facebook by explaining that “the First Amendment governs only governmental limitations on speech); Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 30, 40 (D.D.C. 2019) (“Facebook and Twitter … are private businesses that do not become ‘state actors’ based solely on the provision of their social media networks to the public.”), affirmed, 816 Fed.Appx. 497 (D.C. Cir. 2020); see also Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1930 (“merely hosting speech by others … does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”).

16 See cases cited supra note 16.

17 Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d 2019), petition for cert. pending.

18 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (Challenging a law giving political candidates the right to reply to criticism, the newspapers were found to exercise editorial control and to be more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The law violated the function of editors by forcing them to print content that they would not otherwise include.).

19 Stratton-Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., No. 31063/94, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 26, 1995); compare Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (CompuServe was found not liable for defamatory content posted by users because it allowed all content to go unmoderated and lacked editorial involvement, and, as such, it was considered a distributor rather than a publisher.).

20 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998); see Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (an internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party under Sec. 230(c)(1)); but see Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (Roomates.com was considered an information content provider, rather than a service provider, because it created or augmented content, and was ineligible for protection under Sec. 230).

 

[Angelia]

30 minutes ago, Cyrus Smith said:

Neverovatno je koliko su i jedan i drugi politički blok u Americi taoci ekstremista u sopstvenim redovima. Ne znam da li kalkulacija demokrata da mogu nešto postići objavljivanjem priče o mogućem padu Roe v. Wade imAa osnove ali i to (možda) kvare tako što više i ne znaju reč za osobe koje rađaju i ponekad idu na abortuse:

 

 

Sa druge strane guvener Kalifornije je izgleda diplomirao biologiju pa se osmelio da izjavi neki ekvivalent "da muškarcima treba abortus bio bi dostupan na svakom ćošku" argumenta. Ili samo za definiciju žene treba biti biolog? Transfobija much? Muškarci ipak ne mogu zatrudneti? Teško je biti woke demokrata u zadnje vreme:

 

 

 

Mislim da su omasili temu. Iako je vecina pro-choice u US, takodje vecina smatra da to treba ostaviti drzavama kao odluku.

A i u vreme kad se porodice bore sa inflacijom da li mogu da priuste hranu, abstraktna tema kao sto je sta se desi ako Roe vs Wade padne, je manje bitna koliko god dizali buku.

[Angelia]

58 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

Cyrus, evo potrudila sam se da ti nadjem pravno objasnjenje ovog o cemu mi ovde raspravljamo. Budi ljubazan, nemoj da te mrzi, procitaj:

https://accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/limits-free-speech-social-media

 

  Reveal hidden contents

he public seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the true extent of  “freedom of speech” under the First Amendment. Who can or cannot restrict free speech? What type of speech can be restricted? And how does this apply to speech restrictions on social media platforms which have become so prevalent?

Lawsuits alleging free speech violations against social media companies are routinely dismissed.  The primary grounds for these dismissals are that social media companies are not state actors and their platforms are not public forums, and therefore they are not subject to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Consequently, those who post on social media platforms do not have the right to free speech on these social media platforms. This article will attempt to explain the relationship between social media and free speech so that we can understand why. 

Who Can Restrict Free Speech - State v. Private Actors

The overarching principle of free speech under the First Amendment is that its reach is limited to protections against restrictions on speech made by the government.1 The text of the First Amendment itself only prevents Congress (i.e., U.S. Congress) from making laws that restrict the freedom of speech. This protection is extended to the states, and to local governments, through the State Action  Doctrine and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.2 However, under the State Action Doctrine, First Amendment restrictions traditionally do not extend to private parties, such as individuals or private companies.3 In other words, a private person or private company (such as a social media company) cannot violate your constitutional free speech rights, only the government can do so. That is, unless the private party attempting to restrict speech qualifies for one of the three exceptions to the State Action Doctrine.

The first exception is when an action to restrict speech by a private party involves a function that is traditionally and exclusively reserved for the State, which is known as the Exclusive Public Function Doctrine.4 The Exclusive Public Function Doctrine is limited to extreme situations where a private party has stood in the shoes of the state. For example, when a private company has been given control of a previously public sidewalk or park, it has been found that the private company is performing municipal powers exclusively performed by the state.5 Courts have repeatedly refused efforts to characterize the provision of a news website or social media platform as a public function that was traditionally and exclusively performed by the government.6

The second and third exceptions, which are related to each other, are the entanglement and entwinement exceptions. The entanglement exception applies when an action to restrict speech by a private party is such that the state has significantly involved, or entangled itself, with the private action.7 This occurs when the “power, property, and prestige” of the government is behind the private action, and where there is evidence of the overt, significant assistance of state officials.8 The entwinement exception applies when an action of a private party can be treated as though the action were of the government itself (i.e., overlapping identities).9 These exceptions are rarely used in free speech cases and apply in very limited situations, typically in cases involving the Equal Protection or Establishment Clauses which are not relevant in most social media contexts. 

Where Can Speech Be Restricted - Public v. Private Forums

When speech takes place in a public forum, that speech can qualify for protection of speech under the First Amendment.10 This is known as the Public Forum Doctrine. While there is no constitutional right for a person to express their views in a private facility (such as a shopping center),11 speech that takes place in a traditional or designated public forum for expressive activity (such as a sidewalk or park on government property) is protected and only limited restrictions of speech are allowed.12 A designated public forum can only be created when the government intentionally opens a nontraditional forum for public discourse.13 A private forum (such as a grocery store or comedy club), however, does not perform a public function by merely inviting public discourse on its property.14

Social media platforms are often characterized as a digital public square. Yet, courts have repeatedly refused arguments that social media platforms are public forums subject to the First Amendment.15 This reasoning is justified because their networks are private, and merely hosting speech by others does not convert a private platform to a public forum.16 Only in limited cases have social media sites been found by courts to qualify as a public forum. For example, in a recent case, an appellate court held that the official Twitter page operated by then President Donald Trump was a designated public forum. As a result, government officials could not engage in viewpoint discrimination by blocking individuals from posting comments with critical views of the President and his policies.17 In contrast, a private person or organization’s social media page is not a public forum and is not protected by the First Amendment.

Social media platforms may also be analogized to newspapers when they attempt to exercise editorial control and judgment over the publishing of users’ posts. In this scenario, the Supreme Court has held that newspapers exercise the freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment and cannot be forced to print content they would not otherwise include.18 This is due to a newspaper’s ability to exercise editorial control and judgment, including making decisions on the size and content of the paper, along with treatment of public issues and public officials (whether such treatment is fair or unfair). This leads us to next examine what protections are afforded to social medial companies for content posted by their users on their platforms. 

Social Media’s Immunity for User Content - 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), codified as 47 U.S.C. § 230, was enacted in response to a court decision ruling that an internet service provider, Prodigy, was considered a “publisher” of defamatory statements that a third party had posted on a bulletin board hosted and moderated by Prodigy, and Prodigy could therefore be subject to a civil lawsuit for libel.19 Sec. 230(c)(1) remedies this by providing immunity to internet service providers from lawsuits that attempt to make them liable for the user content posted on their sites.20 Social media companies, which are currently considered to be service providers under Sec. 230(c)(1), are broadly protected from responsibility for what users say while using their social media platforms.21

The next question that logically follows is whether a social media company can restrict or exercise editorial control over content on its platform. Sec. 230(c)(2) of the CDA answers this, by precluding liability for decisions to remove or restrict access to content that the provider deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”22 Social media platforms therefore set their policies and Terms and Conditions to state that they can remove violent, obscene, or offensive content and can ban users who post or promote such content. For example, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have banned terrorist groups that post material promoting violence or violent extremism, and have also banned ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah solely because of their status as U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations. As was recently seen following the 2020 Presidential election, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube (Google), Reddit, and Twitch (Amazon) also justified their suspension of the accounts of President Trump and some of his supporters under Sec. 230(c)(2) for continuing to post misinformation, hate speech, and inflammatory content about the election. 

What are Permissible Restrictions on Speech

As discussed above, if a social media company chooses to remove content from its platform in accordance with its designated policies, that removal does not raise a First Amendment issue and there is no civil liability as a result of Sec. 230 of the CDA. But what if precedent was to be reversed, and a social media platform was declared a state actor or a public forum such that the First Amendment would apply to them? Or what if Sec. 230 was repealed to make social media companies liable for their users’ posts when they attempt to moderate the content? If either were to happen, the type of speech being restricted would play a significant role in its permissibility. 

Restrictions of speech in a public forum are permissible if they are appropriately limited in time, place, and manner.23 Speech can be restricted under a less demanding standard when it is done without regard to the content of the speech or the speaker’s point of view.24 A content-neutral restriction on speech, for example, would be prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of any school building while classes are in session without regard to their message, whereas a content-based restriction would be one that allows picketing only if the school is involved in a labor dispute.25 Other reasonable content-neutral regulations include regulating noise by limiting decibels, or the hours and place of public discussion.26 It is unlikely that content-neutral restrictions could be implemented to effectively regulate violent, obscene, or offensive content on social media platforms, which leaves us with content-based restrictions that would be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Content-based restrictions in a public forum require that there must be a compelling government interest in the restriction and the least restrictive means are employed to further that interest.27

It is important to emphasize that the First Amendment “does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired.”28 For that reason, if there is an alternative channel of communication for the desired speech, it may be a suitable alternative even if it is not a perfect substitute for the preferred forum that has been denied.29 For example, if a user were blocked from posting on a social media platform, alternative channels to make the desired speech might include other social media platforms or different forms of media. Other possibilities might include remedial steps for regaining posting privileges, such as imposing temporary posting suspensions that can be lifted over time or requiring the poster to agree to specific posting restraints before regaining unrestricted access.

What Types of Content-Based Restrictions are Permitted

It is also worthwhile to review the types of protected and unprotected content-based speech to understand the extent of the speech protected by the First Amendment, particularly in view of the recent unrest reflected on social media following the 2020 election. Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted within a few traditionally recognized categories of expression.30

Misinformation, Defamation, Fraud, Perjury, Government Officials

Misinformation is defined as false or inaccurate information. False statements of fact about a public concern or public officials are protected from censorship under the First Amendment, unless the statement is made with knowledge or reckless disregard that it was a false statement made and/or made with intent to harm.31 It is not safe to assume that false statements can be made on social media platforms without impunity. There can be civil liability imposed for defamatory statements, which are knowingly false statements of fact published without authorization that damage others’ reputations (e.g., libel if written and slander if spoken), and for fraud, which is a false statement of fact made with the intent to cause the hearer to alter their position.32 At the time of this writing, statements pushing claims of election fraud following the 2020 election made by various public figures and news commentators on television and social media are being pursued for defamation by electronic voting machine manufacturers Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. 

Hate Speech and Speech that Incites Imminent Lawless Action

The First Amendment generally protects even hate or racist speech from government censorship. However, speech advocating the use of force is unprotected when it incites or is likely to incite imminent lawless action.33 Likewise, speech that is considered an incitement to riot, which creates a clear and present danger of causing a disturbance of the peace, is also not protected by the First Amendment.34“Fighting words” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are unprotected and may be punished or prohibited.35

Harassment and True Threats of Violence

Harassment refers to unwanted behavior that makes someone feel degraded, humiliated, or offended. Harassing someone for the purpose of irritating or tormenting them is protected from censorship by the First Amendment. However, harassment that goes so far as to present a “true threat of violence,” is an exception not protected by the First Amendment and is banned by all social media platforms. True threats of violence directed at a person or group of persons that have “the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death” are unprotected, regardless of whether the speaker actually intends to carry out the threat.36 Intimidation “is a type of true threat,” and would likewise be unprotected by the First Amendment.37

Advertisements

Advertising, which is a type of commercial speech, receives only limited protection under the First Amendment.38 If an advertisement is shown to be misleading or unlawful, a restriction on that speech is permissible.39 A website or social medial platform, much like a newspaper, cannot be forced to print advertisements in contravention of their right of editorial control.40

Conclusion

Current legal precedent conclusively establishes that social media users do not have a right to free speech on private social media platforms. Social media platforms are allowed to remove offending content when done in accordance with their stated policies as permitted by Sec. 230 of the CDA, and that removal does not raise a justiciable First Amendment issue or a real risk of civil liability. The users, on the other hand, put themselves at risk of being banned for making violent, obscene, or offensive content on social media, and may even expose themselves to civil liability for making false, misleading, or violence-inciting statements.

Sources

1 Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1757 (2017).

2  United States Constitution, 1st Amendment, (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech”); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) (applying the freedom of speech from the 1st Amendment to the states by virtue of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment); Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513 (1976) (“the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state”).

3  Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 (1883) (“t is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [Fourteenth] amendment.”); see also Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948) (“[the Constitution] erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful”).

4 Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974).

5 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 505–09 (1946) (a private entity operating a company town is a state actor and must abide by the First Amendment); but see Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972) (confining Marsh’s holding to the unique and rare context of “company town” and other situations where the private actor “performs the full spectrum of municipal powers); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (holding public elections is an exclusive public function).

6 See. e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-06064-LHK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51000, at *26 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018), affirmed 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020); Quigley v. Yelp, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103771, at *4 (“The dissemination of news and fostering of debate cannot be said to have been traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the government.”); see Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019) (“merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function”); Howard v. Am. Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 754 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing internet service, web portal, and emails was not “an instrument or agent of the government.”).

7 Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 173 (1972).

8 Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).

9 Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 298, 303 (2001).

10 Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (There are three categories of government property for purposes of access for expressive activities: (1) traditional, or quintessential, public forums (such as a sidewalk or park on government property) in which content-based restrictions on speech are highly suspect; (2) limited, or designated, public forums in which reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible and content-based prohibitions must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest; and (3) nonpublic forums in which the government can reserve the forum for its intended purposes with reasonable regulations on speech that do not discriminate based on opposition to the speaker’s viewpoint.).

11  PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980); Prager, 951 F.3d at 998.

12  Perry, 460 U.S. at 37.

13 Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985).

14 Prager Univ., 951 F.3d at 998.

15 See, e.g., Prager, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51000, at *25–26 (“Defendants do not appear to be at all like, for example, a private corporation . . . that has been given control over a previously public sidewalk or park . . . .”); Estavillo v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. Inc., No. C-09-03007 RMW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86821, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2009); Nyabwa v. Facebook, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13981, Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-24, *2 (S.D. Tex.) (Jan. 26, 2018) (dismissing lawsuit filed by a private individual against Facebook by explaining that “the First Amendment governs only governmental limitations on speech); Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 30, 40 (D.D.C. 2019) (“Facebook and Twitter … are private businesses that do not become ‘state actors’ based solely on the provision of their social media networks to the public.”), affirmed, 816 Fed.Appx. 497 (D.C. Cir. 2020); see also Halleck, 139 S.Ct. at 1930 (“merely hosting speech by others … does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”).

16 See cases cited supra note 16.

17 Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d 2019), petition for cert. pending.

18 Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (Challenging a law giving political candidates the right to reply to criticism, the newspapers were found to exercise editorial control and to be more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The law violated the function of editors by forcing them to print content that they would not otherwise include.).

19 Stratton-Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., No. 31063/94, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 26, 1995); compare Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (CompuServe was found not liable for defamatory content posted by users because it allowed all content to go unmoderated and lacked editorial involvement, and, as such, it was considered a distributor rather than a publisher.).

20 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998); see Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (an internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party under Sec. 230(c)(1)); but see Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (Roomates.com was considered an information content provider, rather than a service provider, because it created or augmented content, and was ineligible for protection under Sec. 230).

 

 

[Amigo]

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

3 hours ago, Angelia said:

 

 

Ova pitanja su nesto sto ce se vrtetu sporadicno. Realno, ne mogu da nadju zakonsku podrsku jer onda se krse neka druga prava... Prvi amandman je poprilicno jasan. 

 

I pretpostavljam da si ovaj video stavila zbog price da bi twitter odluke mogla biti upletena drzava. Pa... drzava je upletena u sve, vec sam pisala. Ne postoji apsolutna sloboda dogod se stite granice. Hoces drzavu, drzava hoce da kontrolise unutar njenih granica, jos je i placamo za to, nametnuto, ali placamo...