if florida is so concerned about censorship why dont they have a government owned and operated website that allows anyone to post anything they want?
1 Like
Let’s examine Floridas constitution on speech in comparison to the federal one
Florida
Text of Section 4:
Freedom of Speech and Press
Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated
Federal
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.
Highlighted the relevant difference, our first amendment does not recognize a general right to speech, only prohibits government from infringing on it. Theirs, does.
Are these Florida politicians really free speech warriors if they only seek out extra protections for “political speech” and not all speech?
Seems like legislating favor to one topic of speech over the other is a 1st Amendment violation itself.
1 Like
No, our courts have always recognized political speech as the most important form of speech to protect.
How’d ya figure?
Reading the relevant supreme court precedent over decades.
mhmm.
So on this flowchart you’ve got political speech in “The Most Important” form of speech to protect square. Which is next?
1 Like
Doctrine of preemption, Supremacy Clause.
Federal law preempts state law. Citizens United says private entities/corporations have first amendment rights. MCAC vs Halleck says first amendment restraints don’t extend to private entities.
Private entities/corporations have first amendment rights and first amendment restraints don’t extend to private entities/corporations. There are two Supreme Court (federal) rulings which would preempt any state constitution/state law to the opposite.
I find it ironic that both of the SCOTUS cases prohibiting this were ruled 5-4 by the conservative majority. It’s also ironic that corporate personhood, the same conservative championed statute that allowed Hobby Lobby to pick and choose the healthcare it gives to its employees (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), would be another nail in the coffin for this.
2 Likes
He would follow the TOS or be gone.
from Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected quote - Wikipedia
Active liberty is particularly at risk when law restricts speech directly related to the shaping of public opinion, for example, speech that takes place in areas related to politics and policy-making by elected officials. That special risk justifies especially strong pro-speech judicial presumptions. It also justifies careful review whenever the speech in question seeks to shape public opinion, particularly if that opinion in turn will affect the political process and the kind of society in which we live. ”
— Stephen Breyer, (Active Liberty, 2008)
They aren’t using the federal first amendment, nor are they restricting speech. Doesn’t matter one whit what the court has to say about whether the first amendment is applicable.
Emphasis mine.
That ain’t mytweetbook.
What? Nobody tweets about political matters on twit? Pretty sure they do.
If I write “Bush sucks” on a bathroom stall it doesn’t magically become a high-level of protected free speech.
Never said it did.
It doesn’t matter what workaround they are trying to use. The social media/private entity/corporation would take the state to federal court citing any of those cases. They are restricting the speech of the corporation.
Your argument is.
Twitter is the bathroom stall and they threw out the guy who was scribbling “overthrow the government” on it.
This would be pretty nice. Public hosting, public payment processers, public fiber, you name it–a public option wouldn’t be a bad idea.
They would have to tiptoe around the first amendment so much that the public internet would look a lot like Limewire. Glorious.
It’s not like internet moderation or all of this is new anyway. The nerds who built this ■■■■ thought we’d have long ago transcended into a free information truth utopia by now.
Instead the human instinct led us to create and hover into communities based around things like “Beating Women” and "Pizzagate*.
Now, this is America, so you can believe whatever you want. But you can’t force me to host the website for it.
No, we are for freedom of speech & are anti trust.
