by Dennis Crouch
July 4, 1776, the “united States of America” met and declared independence from Britain and its King who had worked to establish “an absolute Tyranny” over the thirteen colonies. Ever since, in the American mindset, tyranny demands revolution. “[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
My Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley grabs hold of this rhetoric in his new book – Tyranny of Big Tech. Although Hawley’s publishing contract has been publicly cancelled, I’m sure he’ll find a way to publish it — even if it means he receives less money. Hawley is way-off the mark. As a person-in-power, he should have taken care to avoid revolutionary rhetoric for what is really a regulatory issue. He unfortunately raised tensions, raised them again, and then again.
BUT, the power of big tech is real. This week, Trump’s soap-box (twitter account) was been removed; Stripe stopped processing his donations; Parler was removed from major app stores (Google + Apple) and its web host denied (Amazon AWS) until the company complies with moderation policies. Parler says it won’t comply. You could imagine the owners of the internet backbone (Tier-1 ISPs) and as direct-to-customer-providers blocking communications from these services as well. This is the most public flexing of US internet might, but lower-key actions have been going on for years — especially toward traditional vices such as sex-workers, pornography, gambling, and marijuana sales. You could imagine next-level ramping up of tensions with pro-Trump shipping companies refusing to deliver for these companies. Ahh, but the legality of all of this may depend upon regulatory controls on speech and on common carriers.
Hawley has been calling these recent actions a violation of free speech rights. That is obviously wrong when it comes to First Amendment protections. The First Amendment does not require private companies publish Donald Trump’s speech or provide internet service Parler. That said, for years liberals have been calling for network neutrality regulations that would go a long way toward this end.
Free speech law does not begin-and-end with the U.S. Constitution. Rather, our internet has been structured as a reaction to common law principles later adapted by Congress. Those rules and regulations can change, and likely will change over the next four years.
For now though, I’m just looking for our democracy to survive the next 9 days. Good luck everyone!
= = = =
Law school was a while back but I remember a case where the Supreme Court found that a shopping mall back in the 1970s was deemed something like a common Carrier, so that it had to allow speakers in the mall even if they were objectionable. The malls were private property, but became a public forum, where free speech ruled. Social media is the modern version of those malls.
Imagine if Ma Bell said you cannot use the phone because we don’t like what you have to say.
Really good comment SVG.
And it definitely goes to common conspiracies and the fact that only a few companies control the market.
Also, it goes to the fact that these same companies are giving money in far greater amounts to Ds than Rs.
Maybe we should revisit Citizens United and disallow ALL juristic “speech” (of the money variety) to ALL Congress folks…
Thanks, Night,
I did a little research and found the case: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 100 S.Ct. 2035 (1980), But See Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner, 92 S.Ct. 2219 (1972)
I stand corrected. But it’s tough for me to follow the logic that a platform is public and subject to the 1A for Trump but not subject to the 1A for anybody else, not even other public officials who announce and discuss policy positions on Twitter.
Who are the other public officials that you are referring to?
Do you really need a specific other public official to grasp the point here, NSII?
We have an immediate case that Trump tried to make his forum NOT to be a public forum (for selective editing) and that very same judicially-decreed public forum was treated as NOT being a public forum (for selective editing — just not by Trump).
There is a very clear dichotomy here.
And it makes a good Litmus test to see who has the ability to put their emotions in check and apply objective critical thinking on the underlying legal issues.
Hi Non Seq. Thanks for respectful exchange.
I was speaking hypothetically, but Twitter has in fact suspended or banned other public officials from its platform, e.g. PA State Sen. Doug Mastriano.
He will not show enough respect and return to engage on the merits.
Sorry Brad.
After watching The Social Dilemma on Netflix, I immediately jettisoned my Facebook, Twitter, Instagram accounts, made DuckDuckGo my default search engine, switched to FireFox from Chrome, and moved to MeWe and Gab. One way to stand up to Big Tech is to take your ball and go home. Once ad revenue drops, concessions will be made. Big Tech values money over political ideology.
We’ve got all the community you need right here at Patently-O.
What about signal?
True, the Constitution and the First Amendment provides protection against Government restrictions of free speech. However, Congress enabled Big tech by giving them immunity from lawsuits. Since Congress enabled them, Facebook, Twitter, and the such are now State-Actors and should be required to go through due-process proceedings before removing speech from their platforms. Amazon’s removal of Parlar is likely not only a breach of contract, but a violation of free speech as a state actor as well.
This is supported by case law. Under Norwood v. Harrison (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that inducing a private person to accomplish what the Government is constitutionally forbidden from doing, is a violation of the Constitution. Section 230 provides that inducement and enables censorship without fear of liability. There are other cases that also support this argument.
Even without a state actor argument, there is also a strong argument that the Internet has become the new public sidewalk. It is a public bulletin board. Hence, due process must be observed when removing speech from Facebook, Twitter, or the Amazon cloud.
“Since Congress enabled them, Facebook, Twitter, and the such are now State-Actors and should be required to go through…”
Yeaah – no.
Being a State actor is not the necessary conclusion reached by any type of mere ‘enabling.’
There are different avenues (for example, being determined to NOT have the 230 protection because of active shaping of content).
The 230 section is NOT permitted for the example that you want to put in play (cens 0r ship IS shaping of content and places you not as a mere platform, but as an editor).
I do like your train of thought on the ‘new’ public forum (although, the traditional analogy is ‘town square’ as opposed to ‘public sidewalk,’ or ‘public bulletin board’).
Also, as noted – the Parler situation pushes into additional areas, as an effective denial of service attack – especially as it can be shown that OTHER platforms may well have been much more major carriers of the very type of interactions being used as an excuse to shun Parler. Unequal treatment is a critical sign of something going wrong.
Interestingly, Although we are approaching a full year point since Malcolm Mooney’s precipitous drop in posting volume, THIS FORUM ‘tested out’ some of the same concepts in play at a much smaller version. Without getting too ‘meta,’ positions such as when does shaping of content and the uneven application of any cens 0r ship or other-named ‘editorial policies’ are clear indicators of what is REALLY going on.
Snowflake, so this latest nonsense you spout is because . . . you desire to have your ass handed to you? Again?
Hi Shifty. Changing your meme/tell a bit?
Maybe like engage on the merits if you want to discuss something (and possibly learn).
Of course, we both know that in your retired state, that you just don’t have the capacity for that, eh? (I’m pretty sure that your capacity prior to retiring was pretty limited as well).
“[E]ngage on the merits.”
Sure, Snowflake.
Snowflake says: “Without getting too ‘meta,’ positions such as when does shaping of content and the uneven application of any cens 0r ship or other-named ‘editorial policies’ are clear indicators of what is REALLY going on.”
Explain in a way that your nonsense is not nonsense.
Off course, you will do that, because everybody knows you’re so all about “engaging on the merits.”
Get your ass handed to you much?
Now change the subject as if nobody notices.
[what a maroon]
“Explain in a way that your nonsense is not nonsense.”
Do you really think that THAT is engaging on the merits?
What exactly did you do at the Office before you retired?
Ok, Snowflake. What is “REALLY going on.”
Your comment appears to be a non sequitur.
Try again.
We don’t think “non sequitur” means what you think it means, Snowflake.
You alleged you knew what is REALLY going on in comment 12.1 in this very thread.
You have established yet again that you are, indeed, an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker.
[and what a maroon]
Who is We?
You are dropping back to ACME plans that have never worked for you.
IF you want to comment on 12.1, then you should place your comment in response to comment 12.1 and not in response to 12.1.1.1.1.1.
And THEN try to make it like someone else’s fault when your ILL-PLACE comment is noted as being a non sequitur to the comment that you ACTUALLY responded to.
What did you do at the Office before retiring?
As to the rest of your post, meh, that’s just you projecting again.
Y
A
W
N
…and your new meme/tell of something “handed” is sooo train-wrecky.
We’ve heard better comebacks ftom a turkey sandwich.
Who is “we?”
(and from you, “better” is not a term that carries any meaning — Beep beep)
Monkey, Dance.
lol – that meme/tell again?
Somehow you think that you implicating that you are “forcing” me to post is somehow a bad thing for me?
And somehow a good thing for you?
You have truly deluded yourself.
So let me remind you yet again – it is NOT a matter of last word.
It is a matter of last word and a matter of best word.
Dance? you confuse my toying with you and having fun at your expense (in your oh so predictable train-wrecky way) as something that you control.
Clearly the plain black and white of the record – and my explanation to you of what Obsess10n means – indicates otherwise. While YOU show an amazing Obsess10n with me, having more than 98.98% of your posts being to or about me, EVEN WITH my having the best and having the last word over your Obsess10n, my rate of posts to or about you is less than 50%.
Take a moment to understand what those numbers mean. Dance to that.
What did you do at the patent office before you retired?
Perhaps some menial administrative function in the appeals division?
Who accused you of not enjoying dancing like a monkey, Snowflake?
Monkey , Dance.
Your spin does not work.
But hey, your choice just made me more bank, so thank$.
Spin? No, dance.
Monkey, Dance.
Your new meme/tell is as
b
o
r
i
n
g
as any of your past memes/tells — as is the “volume” approach that you tend to use each “new” version of your bland spin.
But still, this choice of action of yours falls into my payout categories, so thank$$.
You can do better.
Monkey, Dance.
Nice trueism, as everyone can always do better.
But thank$$$ again for your choice of post.
Now you’ve got it!
Monkey, Dance!
Thank$$$$ again for your choice of post.
(Did you need a link refreshing your memory as to how your choice has been monetized?)
Yes!
Monkey, Dance !!!
Meh, I don’t feel like it today
(and yes, this is to make you choose to post again in a manner to which I have monetized)
Thank$$$$$
See? The boy can’t help it !
Monkey, Dance ! !
You are projecting again.
Don’t you love how I just stated that I was going to make you choose a post that I have monitized the type of?
Thank$$$$$$$
Yes! Monkey Dance !!!
It is interesting – you seem confused between the statement as a command and one as a self-description…
No wonder why you are so chagrined.
Ding Ding Ding!! Vague Smiley Face (x 2) !!!
A tell that shows that even he knows he has nothing of substance to contribute, while doing the monkey dance !
Monkey, Dance !
I said, Monkey Dance.
You missed the “chagrined” part.
Or were you being obtuse?
(and the return of your old tells/memes works against you — and makes me bank!)
And he drops yet another tell within his monkey dance ! The boy just cannot help it !!
Monkey, Dance !!!
An oldie but goodie for you — and one that you have never answered:
What is the difference between a tell and a meme?
Somebody please explain to the boy the difference between a tell and a meme.
But in the meantime, see the monkey dance.
Monkey, Dance !!
[what a maroon]
It’s not somebody – it’s you.
And it’s not for my benefit – it’s for you to see how your own choices have resulted in me setting up a system wherein I monetize off of your choices.
So again, what is the difference between a meme and a tell?
“[M]onetize off of your choices.”
[what a maroon]
And Somebody please explain to the boy the difference between a tell and a meme. Like you’re explaining it to a 5 year old.
Monkey, [sigh], dance.
My bank account thanks you for looping in a completely meaningless manner.
The point still rests in your court:
It’s not somebody – it’s you.
And it’s not for my benefit – it’s for you to see how your own choices have resulted in me setting up a system wherein I monetize off of your choices.
So YET again, what is the difference between a meme and a tell – as YOU understand it?
Now you’re just repeating your inanities.
It just never seems to work out for you, does it?
[what a maroon]
I have repeated the question because you have not yet answered it.
The “not working” is entirely not working for YOU.
Your meme/tell of projecting is ALSO not working for you.
Why don’t you answer the question?
“It just never seems to work out for you, does it?”
Tell me again what the plain black and white history has been between you and I has been like (like forever), my friend.
When has this ever — and I do mean EVER — worked out for you?
Hint: that would be never, not a single solitary instance ever.
[sigh]
What makes you think I was talking to you, Snowflake?
[what a maroon]
Talk about repeating inanities… (and your repeated meme/tell of projecting)….
I have already answered this question of yours.
Why don’t you answer the question that I have put to you?
Are you talking to me, Snowflake? If so, what is your question?
Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
(many times now)…
The point still rests in your court:
It’s not somebody – it’s you.
And it’s not for my benefit – it’s for you to see how your own choices have resulted in me setting up a system wherein I monetize off of your choices.
So YET again, what is the difference between a meme and a tell – as YOU understand it?
That’s your question? Can Somebody PLEASE explain to the boy what’s a meme and what’s a tell. Like you’re talking to a 5 year old.
[what a maroon]
BTW, Snowflake, your “The point still rests in your court:” mixes up two different American idioms.
Oops!!! It just never works out for you, no?
Mixing idioms is an art form.
You might try to expand your horizons. I suggest that you read some of Yogi Berra’s quotes.
As to your misdirection here about some one else telling me anything, you also missed the part that I also included with the question (that you still have not answered).
That part that inoculates against your inanity:
It’s not somebody – it’s you.
And it’s not for my benefit – it’s for you to see how your own choices have resulted in me setting up a system wherein I monetize off of your choices.
Why don’t you answer the question?
As to, “Oops!!! It just never works out for you, no?”
You do realize that your game playing has never (not ever, not a single time) worked out for you, eh?
Underany of your various monikers or methods.
Ever.
It’s hilarious how much you try to spin the plain facts to be something other than what they are.
What was your job at the Patent Office before you retired?
We’re not sure what you’re trying to say, Snowflake. Can you re-sentence?
Who is “we,” and why is the you that is “we” playing dumb?
Who is we? You really need to pay attention, Snowflake. We are not paid to post. We are a conglomerate incorporated in the Cayman Islands whose charter specifies that each individual member is paid 632 dollars (US) in Bitcoin whenever you dance like a money. We are all, of course, multi multi millionaires and looking for new opportunities for investment. Is there anything else you can do in addition to dance like a monkey?
So the singular you thinks that your “we” rhetorical device captures all of that?
You kind of missed the point of the question. Not that surprising as it ties to the question that you refuse to answer in regards to the difference between tells and memes.
But I do thank you for yet again contributing to my monetization of your choice in posting here. So thank$.
You’re not very good at this blogging thing, are you, Snowflake.
Monkey , Dance !! And , Thanks $$$$
Projecting and trying to take my memes?
Not that’s a tell.
We agree. That’s not a tell.
Monkey, Dance $$$
Six days, and that is your comeback?
Y
A
W
N
It was SIX DAYS in your timeline? Wow.
Monkey, Dance $$$$
Yet again, you post in a manner in which I have monetized, while blithely thinking that somehow you are in control.
That is so train-wrecky.
But hey, this habit of deluding yourself must have been a long time in the making. What was it again that you did at the patent office before your retirement?
So there is something you can do in addition to dance like a monkey ! You can pound the table and make stuff up !!
Monkey, Dance $$$$
[and thanks]
Your mix of stolen memes and your own boring ones tells so much about you.
And it’s not good.
Not sure what it is that you think that I am now making up.
And I really don’t care either.
But hey, go ahead and make another post. It’s these types of choices of yours that I enjoy (well, I do enjoy the bucks that roll my way).
You don’t even know anymore what you make up when you pound the table?
Must suk to be you.
Beep Beep.
[and thanks $$$]