The social media companies argue they are not common spaces where free speech is required. This way they can moderate as they choose. It serves them.
But, they also argue that visa applicants sharing their social media details chills first amendment free speech.
The social media companies are inconsistent here and it appears they are looking out for their best financial interests.
The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The social media companies argue they are not common spaces so they can maintain 'jurisdiction' over their own sites. This isn't related to the first amendment at all, as they are not a government entity.
Being asked to share social media does chill first amendment free speech, because it's the government that gets to see everything you do and say online and thus there is an incentive to self-censor in fear of later retaliation.
The whole point of the first amendment isn't that you can say anything you want at any time anywhere, it's that you don't have to fear retaliation from the government.
But let's assume that your issue is with 'free speech' online in general, not just in the context of the first amendment. Then there is still a huge difference between the two.
If, say, Reddit censors the speech you wish to spread, you don't suffer any consequences beyond being unable to use Reddit as your platform. You're free to use any other social media to spread your message.
If the government requests all social media accounts your speech is chilled everywhere, effectively censoring you, the person.
That's not how the system we were discussing works. You are supposed to self-report your social media accounts, and then the government looks into those social media accounts. The platform is never asked to report anything at all.
Or are you describing an entirely different scenario, in which a site like Reddit voluntarily reports on its users (selectively or not)? In which case I don't see how that creates a chilling effect of speech more than anyone else. Any motivated individual can check your social media accounts and report anything they see to the police if it's illegal or suspicious. And they can choose to do this as selectively as they want.
I'm talking more generically.
>The platform is never asked to report anything at all.
I thought platforms routinely work with the government to report potentially illegal content.
>Or are you describing an entirely different scenario, in which a site like Reddit voluntarily reports on its users (selectively or not)?
Discussing the existing system and what the logic being used in this context means when applied elsewhere.
>Any motivated individual can check your social media accounts and report anything they see to the police if it's illegal or suspicious. And they can choose to do this as selectively as they want.
Generally other individuals don't have access to things like IP addresses. And while those don't correlate to a person, it doesn't stop the government from treating it like it does and forcing you to fight it out in court.
One thing has to do with government. It isn't "the government" but rather then "United States government". The individuals involved in this process are in other countries currently under the jurisdiction of non-US governments.
Your argument is that as part of the process to let people from other governmental jurisdictions into the US, the US government should not look at what those individuals say in public because it might lead to them to self-sensor.
> If the government requests all social media accounts your speech is chilled everywhere, effectively censoring you, the person.
If the US government looks at your social media and you live, for example in South Africa, you aren't censored as a person everywhere. That person lives in South Africa and not the US. That person may not gain entrance to the US. But, they as a person are not censored everywhere.
I point this out because _the government_ is often used where there are many governments instead of one. If there were a one world government the argument about censoring a person would be true. But, there currently isn't.
Do you think the US government should not look at what people publicly say as part of their entrance criteria to the US? If so, what about those people who publicly say they want to harm an individual or group of people? Should what they say not be considered for entrance? The US government has a responsibility to protect it's individuals as part of the entrance selection criteria to the US.
It's the endless debate of security v.s. privacy and potential abuse of policy. Governments across the globe are trying to use the technology boom as an opportunity to redefine the borders on this topic that I believe were perfectly fine before. And it's all smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that it's just literally 'because technology'.
Example 1: the postal service opening your mail is a big no-no without a warrant, but suddenly 'because technology' it's okay to do to internet traffic?
Example 2: Two people having a private conversation has been possible since the dawn of time, but suddenly 'because technology' the government has the inalienable right to eavesdrop and backdoor every conversation at any time?
Example 3: The right to not self-incriminate is incredibly important, but suddenly 'because technology' you can be forced to give up encryption keys and open laptops using information that only exists in your head, or risk being detained indefinitely?
I believe that if your argument boils down to 'it's X but with technology' then the government shouldn't have any extra rights or deny any of yours.
I personally think the real issue with the social media border inspection is the self-incrimination and possibly warrentless searches.
I don't have an issue with a border agent looking you up on Facebook, finding your public profile and seeing you posted messages inciting violence against gays, and denying you entry. I do have issues with the government forcing Facebook to give up private messages without a warrant.
I also have a problem with you being forced to divulge all your social media accounts or risk being denied entry based on the fact that you lied. This is just plain self-incrimination.
Considering piracy supporters appear very self righteous about watching HBO shows, Disney movies and so on just because internets allows them to do so for free. And forums such as this are quite encouraging of this behavior. I feel most arguments are essentially "If it works in my favor, it is good and I will call it ethically right thing to reinforce this behavior otherwise it is obviously bad and others should not be allowed to do so.
1. What we post through most social media platforms is direct messages rather than private messages. It's a subtle semantic difference but an important one. The things we say there isn't private. I remember reading about banks getting access to direct messages on FB. I'm not suggesting governments should pilfer this information. I am suggesting we should not have an expectation of privacy.
2. There is a semantic difference between "because technology" being used to avoid warrants and a government looking at what one says in public. I think this is important because pushing for and informing the public on one does not inform or solve the other. The "because technology" angle needs far more general society discussion.
3. There is another angle to the security/privacy discussion. In order to keep privacy one may need to not engage with certain things in certain ways. For example, if I don't want my neighbors to know what I'm doing in my yard I need to live in a place with a natural boundary, like a rural area. Being in a rural area means I'm not living in a city. It's a trade-off and always has been.
I totally understand the issue with abuse and the 'because technology' situation.
It is assumed by the 1st amendment that we have freedom of speech (among many other rights). The amendment does not grant the right, but prevents infringement of it.
At the time of the amendment, there was concern that the federal government might infringe on it, so this amendment specifically called that out.
Later, it became clear that the states had a history of infringing on these and other rights. We fought the Civil War over this. The result was that now states are also enjoined to not infringe on these rights.
Later, it became clear the corporations might infringe on the rights of people, as they, too, were becoming very powerful. This was the anti trust era. It's pretty much settled law that when a corporation attains a certain level of power, as indicated by monopoly status, then they are restricted in their activities. We do not allow the electrical monopoly to cut off power to groups they don't like, or force the signing of terms of partisan terms of service.
Later, during the Civil Rights era, segregationists insisted that people didn't have a constitutional right to eat in the restaurant of their choice, use the drinking fountain of their choice, go to the same schools as others, etc. The federal government ended up sending in the national guard.
These private businesses don't get to infringe on rights just because they're private.
So, the 1st amendment has not only broadened, it has also put the federal government in a sort of supervisory role to interfere when it sees states and business infringing on people's rights.
There is nothing special about a social media company that should give them the ability to infringe on our rights.
> There is nothing special about a social media company that should give them the ability to infringe on our rights.
I personally believe that social media platforms are public spaces (although I don't think it's clear how to precisely define this into law without or minimal loopholes).
But I don't think it's inconsistent or hypocritical for a company to not want to lose control over the discourse on its site while simultaneously advocating against government requests for self-reporting of social media accounts due to previously discussed chilling effects.
In the Civil Rights era, it took from the 1930s until 1964 to pass the Civil Right act, despite bipartisan support. They ended up having to re-invent how the Senate votes to do it.
It will be interesting to see the law that gets created during this time.
Also, I don't think it is possible to divorce the other aspect of what the government is attempting to do here. Guests in our country are exactly that. We depend on the government to vet them in some way to prevent criminals or terrorists from easily crossing the border and causing mayhem. The government has vetted people for several decades in this manner by investigating who the candidate associates with, whether they have a criminal record, etc.
If a criminal comes to our country and commits crimes, and it is possible to know this from the social media that the criminal uses, what responsibility does the social media company have?