Be aware that the DC Circuit leans left, by a lot -- so it's an unsurprising result.
The Supreme Court may eventually take one of these cases and come to a different conclusion.
The Supreme Court may eventually take one of these cases and come to a different conclusion.
You can call the right hypocrites for doing a 180 on corporate property rights and demanding a 21st century fairness doctrine.. but didn't the left do a 180 as well?
Some may want to break true monopolies maybe, but twitter?
Anyway i was convinced by a conservative that big media companies should be partially nationalized (for gov oversight), still i don't think twitter is a big enough natural monopoly to warrant that.
I guess it comes down to whether these justices are ideologically "right-leaning", or just Republican partisans.
And where does the Constitution say that a corporation spending money is speech?
You could say that the value of free speech is so important to society that it is codified on the Constitution. These companies that become big enough platforms should respect that value.
You could also say that the Constitution provides free speech protections to everyone. These companies should benefit from those same protections, thus the government shouldn't be able to interfere what these companies publish.
User count? Great, while the user count is < N the platform is moderated and popular. As soon as the user count exceeds N it's instantly a cesspool of spam and porn. Then what, it bleeds users and drifts back into the first category again? They're going to write subjective distinctions on the content of the speech into the law to differentiate between spam, porn, porn-spam, and political speech?
It doesn't work! If it could work, please, anyone who reads this comment: Many of us are programmers here, propose a rule that doesn't fall apart.
The second interpretation is at least consistent, even if it does protect corporations.
If Twitter is the devil just leave Twitter, no one has to use it. Gab exists. We have no legal right to access the people who are on Twitter.
Legislation has an easy out here: "you'll know it when you see it." Courts would decide and they already need to decide on these distinctions.
>If Twitter is the devil just leave Twitter, no one has to use it. Gab exists. We have no legal right to access the people who are on Twitter.
There's also no reason why the government has to give special protections to Twitter and other sites like it.
Whilst it might be, but is the left in us is already right (like Obama use Romey Insuranve not single payer). Or are we in mix economy some are left some are right. Or left right actually many different things like large and small Gov,liberty, ownership, ...
Or is there something like open source which is beyond left and right but community, not gov vs market etc.
From my perspective, left-meaning means having a close association with reality and pragmatism, and right-leaning means do and say anything to make the rich richer.
"There were only three areas in which Rehnquist showed any interest in enforcing the constitutional guarantee of free expression: in cases involving advertising, religious expression and campaign finance regulation. Rehnquist was 2.6 times more likely to invalidate laws restricting commercial advertising than laws restricting political or artistic expression. He voted to invalidate campaign finance legislation 67 percent of the time, and he voted to invalidate restrictions on religious expression 100 percent of the time. Indeed, in non-unanimous decisions, Rehnquist was 14.7 times more likely to vote to invalidate a law restricting commercial advertising, campaign expenditures, or religious expression than one involving any other aspect of 'the freedom of speech, or of the press.'"[1]
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-09-06-050906...