The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Journal of Free Speech Law: "Free Speech Apart from Law," by Prof. Jeremy Waldron (NYU)
Just published as part of the "Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech" symposium; the Introduction (the article, 2 J. Free Speech L. 107 (2022), is here):
Is there a moral principle of free speech? If so, how does it work? We are accustomed to think of free speech as something set up and sustained by law—by constitutional law in the United States upheld with strong judicial review—in a way that makes it hard to focus our thoughts on what morality in and of itself requires in this area. But it is something that's important to consider.
In this essay, I would like to get an understanding of some philosophical dimensions of the possible operation of the free speech principle—or a free speech principle—considered apart from law. Since domain makes a difference to such a principle's mode of application and what is at stake in the way it operates—I mean the domain of law as opposed to the domain of morality—I would like to set out some of the difficulties that might be involved in formulating and applying a free speech principle, unaided by law, in a purely moral or social domain. And in the second half of this essay, I shall call in aid the example of John Stuart Mill whose essay On Liberty tried to grapple honestly with the difficulties that a purely moral principle of free speech would have to face.
The question is not just academic. It is worth asking, first, as a practical matter, because we want to know how free speech operates at present in the United States in areas where the First Amendment does not apply—namely, areas that do not involve state action. The constitutional principle of free speech applies to the federal government and the states, not to private persons or entities. Congress may not pass any law abridging freedom of speech and (in our understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment) nor may state, county, or municipal legislators, or any other official entity like a state agency or a state university. But these are far from the only power holders in society, far from the only entities in a position to limit or challenge the free expression of ideas. So we may ask: How—in the sense of "by what principles?"—are these other power holders constrained?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bad link. Links to the section by Thomas Hochmann.
Fixed, thanks!
Individually by whatever principles their consciences dictate.
To elicit a different answer requires a different question: How should they be constrained?
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Prof. Waldron is trying to equate the physical "public square" with the virtual "public square," and he will fail.
Physical spaces have limited, finite borders and therefore it's (at times) appropriate for the govt to enforce closure OR access at BOTH govt facilities and private spaces, e.g. a mall, depending on circumstances.
The Internets is unlimited and has no borders.
Don't like Facebooks policies?
Then go somewhere else or create your own social media platform.
So are you saying there can never be a "virtual" public square?
How can there be?
On the Internets, what would be the "border" which would require rules?
A govt can consider a hospital is not a public square but it can (and has) considered a (privately owned) mall a public square.
But that's because there are physical limits and designated uses for these facilities and therefore the govt can prohibit or allow "public" access (again depending on the circumstances).
The arguments to protest in a mall-as-public-square was that the businesses they were protesting were right there. Where people could see the protest.
“Go protest at their corporate HQ in the public street” would have been an equivalent statement to yours.
For the record, I do not support either argument for taking over private space, so I don’t need a tortuous threading of a dozen needles to get to a strained result of sophistry.
And, as usual, I point out this is just more downstream fallout of government threatening section 230, to cause tens to hundreds of billions in stock damage, unless they censor the ways the politicians want. Which was done. Starting with following orders to censor harrassing tweets of political opponents. Right before an election.
And I love how all these Citizen United lovers of government censoring now stand atop their little mountains and scream the delights of corporate owners having free speech rights, “…dammit!”
Well, better late than never. Oh wait, do I hear people picking up their clumsy pliers and threads and needles to attempt to reconcile them?
"The arguments to protest in a mall-as-public-square was that the businesses they were protesting were right there."
No.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Incorrect. The seminal Pruneyard case involved people handing out leaflets and asking for signatures to condemn the infamous UN Resolution 3379 — the one that declared that zionism was racism. They were not protesting any businesses at all.
You are deeply ignorant and confused, and not just about Pruneyard.
It's kind of interesting though - the power of private individuals with more money than anyone else to shut people up or take control of platforms or make politicians beholden to them and to represent their points of view rather than less-wealthy voters.
"On the Internets, what would be the “border” which would require rules?"
Exactly. Why the need for borders? Any government interest in limiting should only be dependent on public safety due to the limits of the venue, not the content of the speech.
The internet being virtual doesn't present the same physical safety concerns.
"On the Internets, what would be the “border” which would require rules?"
Playing the game, DNS's agreeing to delist a site?
>On the Internets, what would be the “border” which would require rules?
Each particular URL is a border.
More generally, why can the government do it wrt the private mall? There is a practically-infinite number of physical locations where someone could, in theory, protest e.g., a local park, some random piece of national forest land in another state, a boat located in international waters, etc. But the mall is important because that's where the relevant listeners are.
Well, you know, the mall case was not a first amendment case. It was a California constitution case. California has a stronger free-speech guarantee than the US does. So don't try to distribute leaflets in malls outside California without permission of the landowner.
It's also interesting to note that the mall case -- Pruneyard -- is considered a very liberal result. Conservative judges generally side with the private landowners in cases like this (such as in red states with similar constitutions). It's only now that the right feels like they want to protest some things that they're suddenly into free speech. Welcome to the party!
"It’s only now that the right feels like they want to protest some things that they’re suddenly into free speech."
So, like the ignorant and confused Krayt, you think that the "Citizens United lovers" were the lefties?
Leftists aren’t liberal.
How can you be commenting here and not know this stuff? Citizens United aligned private property interests and free speech interests. Of course the right was into it.
And of course, the left saw the danger posed by increasing the power of private property interests within the context of elections. This is one reason you won't see much pushback from the left, and probably a lot of excitement, if conservatives do decide to attack the private property interests of big tech.
Personally, I think the left got Citizens United wrong. It's very hard to draw a line between money and free speech. It might be unfortunate, but that doesn't matter. Rather than railing against Citizens United, the better option for the left is to push for more transparency. Citizens United says that you can spend your money in political ways. But that money doesn't have a constitutional right to be "dark money."
Facebook used fraud to shut down other sites. "Go somewhere else" is not acceptable.
Also government uses Facebook for official communications. So, again, "go somewhere else" doesn’t play.
And if "go somewhere else" were really a principle, then there would be no discrimination laws. But it’s not a principle you believe in, it’s a principle you pretend to believe in.
Discrimination laws only apply to suspect classes. If Facebook were telling black people to "go somewhere else," that would be a problem.
Assholes are not a suspect class.
Glad to hear that you and your ilk are not a "suspect class", but "Discrimination laws only apply to suspect classes" is just an admission that the assholes are in control of the laws.
If that were true, we wouldn't have allowed discrimination against assholes now, would we.
Florida and Texas have new laws saying discrimination applies to anyone.
But thanks for making it clear to everyone that your opposition to discrimination is tactical, not at all a matter of principle.
You and the Klan both support discrimination against the Others.
The logical conclusion to Republicans embracing so many patently bad and stupid beliefs, whether sincerely or cynically, is that they will ultimately demand to become a 'protected class' becuase everyone who disagrees with them and tells them to fuck off is bullying and discriminating.
What does that even mean?
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/facebook-online-video-pivot-metrics-false.html
Okay, so that's the usual bizarre conspiratorial spin we've come to expect from the right here on a well-known story. The pivot-to-video debacle is well known. Facebook screwed lots of journalists and misled (or maybe even defrauded) advertisers. They did not do so "to shut down other sites."
They had competition. They fraudulently inflated their numbers. Their competition couldn’t compete against fraud and had to shut down. Facebook got most of the ad revenue from the sites that shut down. It’s not complicated.
You can pretend it was all a complete accident if you want. Why would you make up dumb nonsense to help Facebook though? Because that’s the only thing you know how to do, and you don’t have the self-restraint to be quiet?
That linked article expressly calls it an error.
Whoops!
So your calling it fraud is unsupported.
Next time you accuse people, support it with more than spite.
Congrats on being a defender of Facebook.
How many pages does it take to say bullying people is bad? Or to not say it and therefore miss the point?
Yeah, it’s a little more complicated than that in some situations, but these professors… wow.
Well put.
This recent Wall Street Journal column is pertinent:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/they-want-to-shut-you-up-free-speech-censorship-lorie-smith-colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-obergefell-11671051368
The column points out (and denounces) leftist bullying across the board -- from private business owners who'd rather not participate in a gay wedding to Donald Trump getting kicked off Twitter.
Add "(Paywalled)".
I still love the idea that the most powerful politician in the world got bullied by a social media platform.
This is exactly right. It's bullying, and bullying is bad. It's also protected by the first amendment.
A climate of opinion hostile to a particular point of view is not just like a few articles in the newspaper that one may look at or look away from; it is something that the proponent of the point of view in question has to face at every turn as he or she tries to make their way in life as a social animal.
Of all the things that have stayed the same since the 90s, one thing has changed: the schoolyard is no longer ruled over by the cheerleaders and jocks. Until recently, geeky Peter Parker's high-school nemesis Flash was a lily-white star basketball player who ends up going into the army. That was the face of bullying for a long time. But no more! In the recent Spiderman movies, Flash is now an elitist trifecta: a rich minority tech bro. He's even a popular DJ for extra cultural credit. He bullies poor, white Peter Parker for not being sufficiently elite.
So I get it. The tables have turned and you guys don't know how to deal with being on the other end of the bully / victim relationship.
But go back and watch some 80s high school movies. You'll see a lot of bullying victims overcoming their tormentors. But it's never by whining and crying to the powers-that-be to take an action to "level the playing field" by somehow forcing the bullies to play nice. That always backfires. No, the victims overcome their bullies by growing a pair and learning self-confidence. That's what all of us on the left did, and look where we are now! We've achieved the status of Spiderman's bully.
So stop acting like fucking John Hughes loser crybabies and man up!
That means, have an actual opinion of your own that you can stand on, and don't worry so much when people call you an idiot asshole. If your entire worldview revolves around feeling persecuted, that means you've let your bullies define you. You'll never win that way. Figure out an actual worldview for yourself that's independent of what the bullies are saying. Then when they call you an idiot asshole, you'll just know that they're wrong and won't have to worry so much that they might actually be right. But that probably won't even happen, because once you have a confident perspective, you won't be an idiot asshole anymore.
I'm glad you won't mind my calling you an idiot asshole.
Not that I wanted your permission, but thanks anyway.
Nope, don't mind at all! In fact, I think it's a step in the right direction for you. It sure beats the endless, cringey whining!
The article is about principle, not the wording and interpretation of a law. It’s not a concept that someone like you can easily understand.
Then I guess it's a good thing my post was entirely about principle, and not at all about the wording and interpretation of a law.
You ranted on quite a while there. Do you think anyone is interested in your pretending and deflecting?
Just say you enjoy the idea of harm coming to people who are not like you. No need to keep pretending otherwise.
If you read my rant, you would see that it's quite the opposite. I don't at all enjoy the idea of harm coming to anyone.
The right has chosen to go all in on grievance. It's the only discernable principle remaining, especially in the MAGAverse. But that's just inflicting harm on yourselves, and it also invites bullying. Bullies pick on the vulnerable. Being so easily aggrieved makes you vulnerable. The solution is simple, but only you can make it happen. I hope you do!
Why not simply stop bullying people instead?
Why are you and so many others so happy to join and support the bullying? Because you’re one of The Good Guys and that’s what The Good Guys do?
It's a really good question! The short answer is, because you deserve it!
The long answer, which I know you hate my rants, but here you go, is:
I think it's a bad idea to have a culture that celebrates weakness. I don't like participation trophies. I don't like coddling. I think Gen Z is super fucked up. I don't believe in microaggressions. And I despise whining.
I think it's sad that the right has been turned into a bunch of sniveling crybabies. Maybe it's human nature to torment the emotional weaklings among us in the subconscious hopes of thickening their skins enough for them to develop self-confidence. That's certainly the lesson of John Hughes and recent American cultural history.
I think you just say whatever and don’t actually believe in anything, just like a lot of the other regular commenters here.
And I think you're in a cult, and when faced with ideas that conflict with your priors, you block them out by writing them off as unserious.
What ideas? I almost never see any ideas from anyone here.
Posturing isn’t an idea.
All of the different ways that we’ve been explaining how the right isn’t being persecuted and oppressed, or even discriminated against. It’s a self-inflicted fantasy. Or, looking closer, it’s a fantasy inflicted on the rank-and-file by the power centers of the right.
Bullied, yes. Persecuted, no.
In other words, those of us outside the cult spend a lot of effort here debunking the claims of your leaders.
You’re right that doesn’t leave a lot of time for much else. Occasionally there are substantive second-amendment debates. But everything else — and sometimes even those — devolves into the right-wingers feeling butt-hurt about some made-up grievance / conspiracy and the rest of us rolling our eyes.
So zero ideas then.
Look, I'm sorry that the four or five conservative social media sites are grim sad places nobody actually likes while Twitter is still somehow hilarious and buzzing even after the Musk took over, but that's nobody's fault but the conservatives who created and use them.
One of the reasons to support a culture of free speech is that historically, the accepted wisdom has often turned out to be wrong. Free speech and rigorous, no-holds barred debate are the best way to arrive at the truth. When reasoned debate is replaced with bullying into belief of the accepted position, that's where there is a danger of accepting falsehood. Ask Galileo.
'When reasoned debate is replaced with bullying into belief of the accepted position, that’s where there is a danger of accepting falsehood.'
How do all the people who know for a fact that Trump really won the last election fit into this? Reasoned debate and bullying are always going to be indistinguishable to such people.
Galileo was more than just bullied. The fact that you're equating the right's hurt feelings with Galileo's imprisonment is a tell.
The Internet a Government-Designated Public Forum According to Section 230 (a &b) [My Gloss]
(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services{53} [Internet On-Ramps like 1996 AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy] available to individual Americans [members of the public] represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources [creates a public forum] to our citizens [the public].
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. [Statement Designating Public Forum]
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans [the Public], with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services [to create a public forum].
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States –
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps], unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control [not control by private hi-tech mega corporations] over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps];
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
—————————-
{53} The Internet is a network of connected networks, which in 1996 could include a 1996 ICS. Thus the 1996 Internet was a 1996 ICS but was not a suable ICS. A constituent ICS was suable.
Is that just a quote or did you actually add your gloss somewhere in it? TL(Didn't)R.
No, it's a quote from § 230 interspersed with stuff he made up; it's shocking that — unlike in his legal papers — he honestly admitted it was his gloss rather than what the statute actually says. He keeps ignoring text and saying "Internet on-ramps," which is not in fact what the CDA focused on. And then he throws in something about "public forums" that's not in the statute either.
The square bracketed text is my gloss.
I explained what an Internet On-Ramp is in the Petition. In 1996 AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were examples of Internet On-Ramps. An ICS of Section 230 is an Internet On-Ramp or an Access Software Provider.
This following Quora post explains what an ICS is according to Section 230.
What Is an Interactive Computer Service by Careful Grammatical and Syntactic Analysis?
Obviously If one were using an ICS to access the Internet, Section 230 would apply, but this technology was obsolete by 2011-2012. No social medium platform is an ICS, and no one uses an ICS today.
An ICS could also be an Access Software Provider. I will discuss in the reply.
That's not even really true, but it's also irrelevant. Yes, by 1996 one could use AOL, Prodigy, or Compuserve to access the Internet, but that was not at all their primary function; they were still primarily acting as walled garden BBSes. But so what? § 230 does not speak of "Internet On-Ramps," AOL, Prodigy, or Compuserve. § 230 speaks of ICSs. It's pretty ironic that someone who rambles on and on (mistakenly) about logical errors to employ the obviously fallacious syllogism
AOL is an ICS.
AOL is an Internet on-ramp
Therefore, ICSs are Internet on-ramps.
The following Quora post is something written by you that shows a complete inability to parse the English language. It's just wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. "Including" is not "And." It's just not. Nobody who isn't engaged in motivated reasoning and who is fluent in English could possibly think that.
"A is defined as something that does B, including something that does C" is not "A is defined as something that does B and C."
There is not a single judge anywhere in the United States in the quarter century of the existence of the CDA that has interpreted the statute as you do. This could be because you are the only one in the country smart enough to understand the statute, or because you are the only one in the country dumb enough to think that. Of those two, what does Occam's razor suggest?
That is, of course, a completely wrong understanding of the context of the statute. They didn't need to be immunized from something they had no control over. The entire point was to reverse Stratton Oakmont by immunizing them for things they did have control over.
None of the Courts that blindly followed Zeran like Lemmings had anyone in Court that actually understood the technology. In any case, in 1997 an actual Internet On-Ramp was still in use.
There is a nice thing about filing a Petition to SCOTUS. Even if I don't receive a writ, clerks for Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas will read it. Possibly these three Justices will read the Petition, and Justice Thomas will wear all the other Justices down.
I have to add that in patent practitioner forums, everyone agrees with me because a patent practitioner is accustomed to reading clauses and limitations of the sort that we find in Section 230.
Nothing in 230 requires an understanding of technology. It just requires an understanding of English.
The proposed hypothetical does not correspond exactly to grammatical construction, which is associated with the definition of an ICS in Section 230 (f), but why not analyze it?
Why is there a comma?
Why isn't the proposed hypothetical statute written?
A is defined as something that does B including something that does C.
The presence or absence of the comma is significant.
Without the comma, one must assume "including..." pertains to B (adjacent noun) in some way.
With the comma, one must conclude "including..." pertains to a non-adjacent noun. Sometimes it is better to rewrite a sentence to make the meaning exact.)
Here are two examples. In the second the comma indicates that the referend is not the adjacent noun.
Punctuation (technically a writing rule that adds clarity or precision), grammar, syntax (technically part of grammar), and semantics all have significance both in statutory interpretation and also in claim construction.
The meaning of ICS is a matter of law. SCOTUS can address it in any case that pertains to Section 230 (c) or (d). I do not have to receive a writ to vitiate current Section 230 caselaw. I can win on the issue simply by creating awareness that ICS does not apply to a modern Internet technology. Justice Thomas will do the rest. I point out in my Petition that the common carriage framework is more than sufficient to address all legal aspects of an Internet service.
I remember Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S. Ct. 2363 (1989).
Congress responded to the decision, which addressed a semantic issue, by adding a clause to 42 U.S. Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law.
Why Grammar Matters: Conjugating Verbs in Modern Legal Opinions is worth reading.
I address Stratton Oakmont in the Petition.
Because that's how one writes in English.
It could be in some circumstances, but rarely. "A is defined as something that does B including something that does C." and "A is defined as something that does B, including something that does C." have the same meaning.
The comma isn't what changes the meaning of your afactual, antisemitic screeds; the content is.
"An inadmissible foreign national is defined as someone that perpetrates genocide including a genocidal action that leaves a victim alive." and "An inadmissible foreign national is defined as someone that perpetrates genocide, including a genocidal action that leaves a victim alive." have the exact same meaning.
Yes, but you do so entirely incorrectly, not understanding the decision or the context for the law. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "Internet on-ramps." Stratton Oakmont only held Prodigy liable for things that Prodigy did have control over, and that's precisely what 230 was designed to reverse.
In fact, if one reads the initial policy clauses of Section 230, Congress designates the Internet a public forum. Normally, a Court does not pay attention to such policy or declarative prologues, but this prologue makes a big difference and is worth reading carefully because Section 230 was signed into law by the president. Who is SCOTUS to tell the President and Congress that the Internet is not a government-designated public forum?
If anyone disagrees, he is free to file an amicus brief. It should only cost about $1500. I have already filed the blanket consent. See Docket 22-532.
That was a waste of your time, since come January 1, that's no longer a requirement.
Also, why on earth would anyone waste time filing an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court shouldn't hear a frivolous appeal? Cert is going to be summarily denied anyway.
What did filing a blanket consent cost me? A first class stamp, an envelope, and one page of printer paper.
A Medium Corp takes my argument seriously and has hired an "award-winning brief writer and experienced oral advocate" to oppose my petition. Some lawyers understand my arguments completely and why the arguments might appeal to the Originalist Justices even if the Justices might not be enthused with the idea of an oral argument from me.
Congress never mentions the term public forum.
As with a patent claim, one reads a statute as a whole. The statute explicitly includes the word forum. SCOTUS has to read the statute as a whole to determine the type of forum. This textual analysis is a matter of law.
Clause (a):
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps like 1996 AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy] available to individual Americans [members of the public] represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources [creates a public forum] to our citizens [the public].
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity. [Statement Designating Public Forum]
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services [Internet On-Ramps] have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans [the Public], with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services [to create a public forum].
an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources [creates a public forum] to our citizens [the public].
That is quite a stretch. "Available resources" describes a one-way exchange of information from the resource provider to the citizenry. A public forum is a place where citizens can participate with information of their own, creating a dialogue.
And a "forum" is not automatically a "public forum." I don't see how you can draw that inference. There are lots of "forums" that are open to the public but aren't "public forums." In fact, that's the typical case for private property. A privately-owned public forum is a rare bird. A movie theater, for example, provides a forum for the public to experience myriad political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services, but that doesn't make it a public forum.
The constituent networks of the Internet mostly belong to the government as do a lot a services and facilities. ISPs and NSPs often receive practically all their funding from the government.
A social medium platform only owns its own corporate network. It seems fairly arrogant and probably illegal for a social medium platform to discriminate in government networks, government facilities or in networks and facilities that all belong to someone else.
Also Section 230 is a 1996 statute. We should probably read the policy clauses in the 1996 context.
That’s entirely the point. The constituent networks — whether they belong to the government or not (these days they generally don’t) — should and generally are treated as common carriers. The term Net Neutrality is usually used in this context, which stands for the proposition that the networks that make up the Internet should be (almost) entirely content- and identity-neutral.
It seems fairly arrogant and probably illegal for a social medium platform to discriminate in government networks, government facilities or in networks and facilities that all belong to someone else.
This bizarre statement is the core flaw with your lawsuit. Twitter pays for access to the constituent networks, just like Truth Social and everyone else. Anyone can access those networks. That’s pretty much what you’re doing when you pay your phone or ISP bill. Anyone can say whatever they want on those networks… including Twitter!
Customers of the Internet, such as Twitter, don’t have any public-service obligations. They can use their Internet access however they want. There’s nothing compelling them to provide free pass-through access to all comers. If you want Internet access, get it yourself.
That would be like if the RNC, because it uses phone banks, were obligated to allow the Democrats to robodial their own messages over the RNC’s lines. No. The phone system is a common-carrier network, just like the Internet’s constituent networks. That means the DNC can get its own phone banks. It doesn’t mean that anyone who uses phones becomes a common carrier by proxy.
Twitter holds out message carriage to the public for a fee on standard terms. You seem not to understand that I refer to common law common carriage and not to statutory telecommunications common carriage. An interstate trucker can be a common law common carrier but is not a statutory telecommunications common carrier.
You can read the Petition here.
Twitter is itself a message common carrier and not an ICS. Twitter hardly differs from an email service, which is a message common carrier, but for a niftier user service. The public has a right to non-discriminatory message common carriage from Twitter just as it does from an email service like Google Gmail.
Twitter also cannot host a discriminatory open forum in a public forum.
In the constituent government networks, Twitter is inextricably intertwined with the government and becomes a proxy for the government or a state actor.
That's a completely different and somewhat contradictory argument. Of course Twitter could be regulated as a common carrier based on the service it provides. Perhaps it even should be under common law. But that has nothing to do with Section 230 or Internet governance. You're confusing your case by trying to conflate a common law argument based on Twitter's function with a statutory argument based on its form. It doesn't work.
In the constituent government networks, Twitter is inextricably intertwined with the government and becomes a proxy for the government or a state actor.
This is just silly. By this logic, all Internet sites and users are state actors, as is everyone who uses a phone or mails a letter.
No, it doesn't. It holds itself out as providing a curated experience that promotes certain values and restricts others.
And, of course, it doesn't carry anything or charge a fee. (Well, except the ridiculous Twitter Blue thing.)
Nope. It's an ICS because it is an information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. It is not a common carrier because it doesn't hold itself out as performing the functions of a common carrier.
No such "right" exists.
There's no public forum here. Twitter is a private company. Moreover, that's not even right anyway; that the parade in Hurley used public streets — a traditional public forum — did not have any bearing on its first amendment right to exclude.
Whoops. I thought I agreed with you based on your prior responses to Martillo, but we diverged here. No, it can't be. The First Amendment does not allow the government to expropriate a private publisher's business, declare the publisher a "common carrier," and require it to distribute other people's speech.
I'm trying to be as charitable as possible. I agree with you that Twitter couldn't be regulated as a common carrier in the way that is generally proposed, i.e. where the state dictates their moderation rules.
I think Twitter could be prohibited from banning accounts. That is, if you know my Twitter handle, you can type it in and see my tweets.
But Twitter can't be forced to include my handle or my tweets in search results, directory listings, recommendations, or feeds of any kind, or to make them available to third-party publications or retweeters.
Please read the case before babbling.
The controversy in Hurley pertained to a place of public accommodation and not to a public forum. It might have been interesting to try to argue a violation of public forum doctrine, but that ship had long left the dock before the case reached SCOTUS.
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian Bisexual Group, 515 U.S. 557, 558-59 (1995)
That was exactly David’s point. You said:
Well, why not? Hurley hosted a discriminatory open forum (parade) in a public forum (public streets).
In 1996 I built and maintained Access Software that a 1996 Access Software Provider supplied. There are no Access Software Providers today, but if we could find one, Section 230 would apply.
So What was a 1996 § 230 Access Software Provider?
Nice: It’s kind of interesting though – the power of private individuals with more money than anyone else to shut people up or take control of platforms or make politicians beholden to them and to represent their points of view rather than less-wealthy voters.
Nonsense. The wealthy delight in representing the views of less-wealthy voters—to save them the trouble of doing it themselves.
*By the way, Nige's comment is copied and posted here because the reply function was not working. Otherwise, it would have been a reply.
Look into CKI's market based management principles. One of the central tenets is that the primary value of free speech - that expressing many ideas and being free to criticize others will help find the best ones in any situation - applies outside of government interference and can improve businesses and any organization.
I do not make the following argument in my Petition.
I argue the following.
At this point, message common carriage law is the law most applicable to a 2022 social medium platform.
I argue the following in my Petition.
Internet exceptionalism is unjustifiable. Common carriage has evolved to cover common carriers as diverse as ferries, stagecoaches, railroads, telegraphs, telephony, the US Postal Service, FedEx, Amazon delivery, taxi service, DoorDash, grocery common carriage service, pneumatic mail, trucker common carriers, some escalators, some elevators, a Ferris wheel, air common carriers, telex, email service, SMS, container ships, etc.
A social medium platform easily fits into this eclectic group.
Every social medium platform is a message common carrier of digital personal literary property if it holds out message carriage to the public under uniform terms for a reasonable charge, which may be monetary fee, barter (information collected about the user) or work for carriage (to wit, âeyes-on-a-pageâ - a valuable item).
The service, which a social medium platform provides, hardly differs from common carriage service, which telegraph or telex provided.[19] The only major difference is a whizzier interface, (a) which the social medium platform downloads to an end user laptop computing device or (b) which is software (i) licensed from the social medium platform and (ii) pre-installed as an app on a mobile computing device in order to avoid delay associated with downloading a webpage from a backend server.
I see what you mean about the reply button.
'The wealthy delight in representing the views of less-wealthy voters—to save them the trouble of doing it themselves.'
I think the general idea is that wealth = virtue, ability and wisdom, evidence notwithstanding.
Please learn how appellate review works, and study the difference between a public forum and a place of public accommodation.
The original complaint included no count of violation of public forum doctrine. Therefore, SCOTUS does not address possible violation of forum doctrine.
SCOTUS seems to consider a parade to be speech in the public forum of the streets and not to be itself an open forum within the public forum of the streets. The Defendants would probably have prevailed on a count of violation of public forum doctrine, but we will never know because there was no such count in the original complaint.