MARSH V ALABAMA
(((SOCIAL MEDIA))) ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST. People are.
MARSH
V
ALABAMA
(((SOCIAL MEDIA))) ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST.
People are.
"Social media platforms have a First Amendment right to moderate content disseminated on their platforms," Judge Robert Pitman wrote.
So when a corporation does not want to censor content on their platform they are not the true author of the content and they are just a public forum and they are protected from any liability for said content via Section 230 protections...
But when the corporation DOES want to censor content they are infact the publisher and owner of all the content on their site and prohibiting censorship amounts to 'Compelled Speech.'
This is the epitome of 'Rules for Thee and Not for Me'. They get two different sets of rules that they get to apply depending on their desired outcome.
> "Social media platforms have a First Amendment right to moderate content disseminated on their platforms," Judge Robert Pitman wrote.
So when a corporation does not want to censor content on their platform they are not the true author of the content and they are just a public forum and they are protected from any liability for said content via Section 230 protections...
But when the corporation DOES want to censor content they are infact the publisher and owner of all the content on their site and prohibiting censorship amounts to 'Compelled Speech.'
This is the epitome of 'Rules for Thee and Not for Me'. They get two different sets of rules that they get to apply depending on their desired outcome.
(post is archived)