The science of search engines

BlueTex · 2018-09-22T18:57:45.948Z

Smyrna:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech , the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

IMO Google is “abridging the freedom of speech”.

Google can abridge free speech all day long and it doesn’t violate the first amendment. CONGRESS is prevented from abridging freedom of speech, not companies…

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-22T18:59:31.688Z

Google is not Congress.

On the other hand, if Congress were to pass a “fairness doctrine” that abridged Google’s freedom of speech to show whatever results they wanted, that would be a violation of the First.

Smyrna · 2018-09-22T19:01:08.492Z

BlueTex:

Google can abridge free speech all day long and it doesn’t violate the first amendment. CONGRESS is prevented from abridging freedom of speech, not companies…

It’s a whole new arena and needs to be reexamined and what I’m proposing is for fair and equal treatment for all. How can you be against that?

BlueTex · 2018-09-22T19:02:05.447Z

Smyrna:

It’s a whole new arena and needs to be reexamined and what I’m proposing is for fair and equal treatment for all. How can you be against that?

Are you proposing we remove the first amendment?

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-22T19:02:37.276Z

Because you’re demanding that the government enforce your version of “fairness”.

Smyrna · 2018-09-22T19:03:18.350Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

Because you’re demanding that the government enforce your version of “fairness”.

It should be Congress’s version of fairness.

Cynic · 2018-09-22T19:04:19.989Z

Because your narrow focus makes it nonsensical, any rational person sees the slippery slope and “fairness doctrine” issues it would invoke.

dantes · 2018-09-22T19:04:20.895Z

Because it restricts feeedom of speech.

BlueTex · 2018-09-22T19:04:41.615Z

Smyrna:

It should be Congress’s version of fairness.

Would be ruled unconstitutional in a heartbeat…

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-22T19:05:07.525Z

What happens if Congress decides that your opinion is “unfair”?

reflechissez · 2018-09-22T19:10:33.980Z

Smyrna:

TheDoctorIsIn:

Why don’t you think Google’s search results are protected by the First Amendment?

Or, for the sake of clarity - why do you think Google’s search results are not protected by the First Amendment?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

IMO Google is “abridging the freedom of speech”.

Why do right wingers get this so wrong so often? The 1st amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from abridging free speech. You and I can abridge free speech all day long.

Smyrna · 2018-09-22T19:24:22.736Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

What happens if Congress decides that your opinion is “unfair”?

Then there would be an explanation that I’m confident would be logical and I could then better understand my…faulty logic.

Smyrna · 2018-09-22T19:26:04.121Z

reflechissez:

Why do right wingers get this so wrong so often? The 1st amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from abridging free speech. You and I can abridge free speech all day long.

Maybe we can but can a company that operates in the public that is in the service of speech?

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-22T19:27:12.896Z

So you’re saying that you’re willing to give up your right to speak your mind, as long as the government makes a “logical” argument as to why it’s “unfair”?

You are welcome to self-censor yourself in pursuit of “fairness”, but I think you’ll find the vast majority of Americans will disagree with you.

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-22T19:28:51.335Z

Smyrna:

Maybe we can but can a company that operates in the public that is in the service of speech?

Yes. Undoubtedly.

Thats how the first amendment works.

Smyrna · 2018-09-22T19:31:39.042Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

So you’re saying that you’re willing to give up your right to speak your mind, as long as the government makes a “logical” argument as to why it’s “unfair”?

You are welcome to self-censor yourself in pursuit of “fairness”, but I think you’ll find the vast majority of Americans will disagree with you.

If that’s what you interpreted out of our exchange…thanks…and have a super, duper day.

Smyrna · 2018-09-22T19:33:27.328Z

TheDoctorIsIn:

Yes. Undoubtedly.

Thats how the first amendment works.

They are protected to prohibit free speech by applying their product and do so in the name of free speech?

TheDoctorIsIn · 2018-09-22T19:35:09.499Z

As far as I’m concerned, that’s what you said. If I am incorrect, feel free to correct me.

But taking your ball and going home is just a concession that you’re in over your head and can’t actually respond.

reflechissez · 2018-09-22T19:35:13.882Z

Smyrna:

reflechissez:

Why do right wingers get this so wrong so often? The 1st amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from abridging free speech. You and I can abridge free speech all day long.

Maybe we can but can a company that operates in the public that is in the service of speech?

Your argument doesn’t make sense. If the government owned the search engine, you might have a point.

CanadianJudo · 2018-09-22T19:36:34.041Z

You want the Government to regulate search engines?