Facebook bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Louis Farrakhan, among others

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Farrakhan is a right-winger now? When did he take the red pill?

Farrakhan is a vile anti-semitic and Trump supporter.


Contrary to Fox News liberals have been voicing opposition against Farrakhan and his hateful operation for a long time, especially women of color.

https://twitter.com/TPM/status/956607214671757313


No, Farrkhan is not a right-winger.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1124035367752146945

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Tired of this, not so sad about Alex or Farrakhan: they have their own large platforms.  The smaller ones don't.

A conservative lawyer explained this pretty well that it should be unconstitutional*to ban these people:

First Amendment Law is a one-way ratchet. If a regulator tried to twist the civil rights laws in such a way that they were constraining speech, you could walk into a district court anywhere in the country and get an injunction forcing them to stop.

The recently decided Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolina, is instructive here.

In that case, Lester Packingham – a North Carolina resident and a registered sex offender – posted to Facebook about an experience in traffic court. North Carolina had a law banning registered sex offenders from using social media sites.

Packingham demonstrates what happens when governments try to use regulation to try and restrict access to social media sites. The facts of Packingham are pretty simple; the government of North Carolina, for perfectly sensible reasons, passed a law that prohibited convicted sex offenders from using social media.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found this speech constraint unconstitutional. And used very basic, settled law to do so. Simply put – under long-standing first amendment law, the government cannot restrict your access to the public square. As Justice Kennedy explained:

“By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. . . . In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”

So here we have it – a unanimous Supreme Court decision holding that the First Amendment prohibits federal and state governments from restricting your access to social media. North Carolina’s law was clearly well-intentioned; they were trying to protect children from sex offenders by keeping those sex offenders off of social media.

But even a speech restriction that understandable did not pass Constitutional muster.

This isn’t a close question. The concerns about government regulation being turned around to constrain speech are simply unfounded.

*Also argues that a law would have to be passed to make this distinction clear for "private" companies that are running de facto public squares: https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civil-right/

[pbrower2a]

As a private enterprise in the media, Facebook has the right to ban participants who use its media for purposes contrary to its own. Like practically all websites it bans spam, porn, and hate speech. Like a newspaper it can refuse to print a rambling, incoherent diatribe that might even consist of libel. Facebook conversations are ideally congenial and not confrontational.

[emailking]

Tired of this, not so sad about Alex or Farrakhan: they have their own large platforms.  The smaller ones don't.

A conservative lawyer explained this pretty well that it should be unconstitutional*to ban these people:

First Amendment Law is a one-way ratchet. If a regulator tried to twist the civil rights laws in such a way that they were constraining speech, you could walk into a district court anywhere in the country and get an injunction forcing them to stop.

The recently decided Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolina, is instructive here.

In that case, Lester Packingham – a North Carolina resident and a registered sex offender – posted to Facebook about an experience in traffic court. North Carolina had a law banning registered sex offenders from using social media sites.

Packingham demonstrates what happens when governments try to use regulation to try and restrict access to social media sites. The facts of Packingham are pretty simple; the government of North Carolina, for perfectly sensible reasons, passed a law that prohibited convicted sex offenders from using social media.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found this speech constraint unconstitutional. And used very basic, settled law to do so. Simply put – under long-standing first amendment law, the government cannot restrict your access to the public square. As Justice Kennedy explained:

“By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. . . . In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”

So here we have it – a unanimous Supreme Court decision holding that the First Amendment prohibits federal and state governments from restricting your access to social media. North Carolina’s law was clearly well-intentioned; they were trying to protect children from sex offenders by keeping those sex offenders off of social media.

But even a speech restriction that understandable did not pass Constitutional muster.

This isn’t a close question. The concerns about government regulation being turned around to constrain speech are simply unfounded.

*Also argues that a law would have to be passed to make this distinction clear for "private" companies that are running de facto public squares: https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civil-right/

I see the argument that the government cannot ban people from using social media, but not that individual platforms on social media cannot ban whom they choose.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tired of this, not so sad about Alex or Farrakhan: they have their own large platforms.  The smaller ones don't.

A conservative lawyer explained this pretty well that it should be unconstitutional*to ban these people:

First Amendment Law is a one-way ratchet. If a regulator tried to twist the civil rights laws in such a way that they were constraining speech, you could walk into a district court anywhere in the country and get an injunction forcing them to stop.

The recently decided Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolina, is instructive here.

In that case, Lester Packingham – a North Carolina resident and a registered sex offender – posted to Facebook about an experience in traffic court. North Carolina had a law banning registered sex offenders from using social media sites.

Packingham demonstrates what happens when governments try to use regulation to try and restrict access to social media sites. The facts of Packingham are pretty simple; the government of North Carolina, for perfectly sensible reasons, passed a law that prohibited convicted sex offenders from using social media.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found this speech constraint unconstitutional. And used very basic, settled law to do so. Simply put – under long-standing first amendment law, the government cannot restrict your access to the public square. As Justice Kennedy explained:

“By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. . . . In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”

So here we have it – a unanimous Supreme Court decision holding that the First Amendment prohibits federal and state governments from restricting your access to social media. North Carolina’s law was clearly well-intentioned; they were trying to protect children from sex offenders by keeping those sex offenders off of social media.

But even a speech restriction that understandable did not pass Constitutional muster.

This isn’t a close question. The concerns about government regulation being turned around to constrain speech are simply unfounded.

*Also argues that a law would have to be passed to make this distinction clear for "private" companies that are running de facto public squares: https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civil-right/

Uh that has nothing to do with this. That involved the state of North Carolina restricting social media use, not a private company.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Facebook was to ban people on the account of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, that would probably provide a ground for holding it accountable due to various civil rights legislations. However, it does not apply to Jones, Milo or Farrakhan, as they are banned for hateful content. And it's not like their "first amendment rights" are being restricted. They can say and publish whatever they want and not be prosecuted for this. But the Facebook may choose not to allow them to use it as a platform. I don't see it as legally diffrent than a property owner refusing a political candidate he disagrees with to use his fence to hang a campaign sign.

I have some issues with the way Facebook and similar platforms are operating, but I applaud this action.

[Grassroots]

"Dangerous", say the ones censoring free speech. This is absolutely unconstitutional.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"Dangerous", say the ones censoring free speech. This is absolutely unconstitutional.

Again, it's utter bulls**t and I bet you haven't even bothered to read previous posts, just came here to make this cheap, and inaccurate remark.

Let me put this in terms you might understand. If somebody wants to put a political poster on my fence, I have all the right to tell him to f**k off and search elsewhere. Legally it's no diffrent from Facebook deciding that some content is not permitted on their platform.

[Old Man Willow]

The conservative hypocrisy on this is so disgusting.

[DrScholl]

"Dangerous", say the ones censoring free speech. This is absolutely unconstitutional.

Facebook is a private website with the right to regulate what is posted on there especially if it is threatening or dangerous. IT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Dangerous", say the ones censoring free speech. This is absolutely unconstitutional.

Is it unconstitutional for this site to ban Texarkana and AP?

[Stranger in a strange land]

I missed the part where Facebook became part of the government. The 1st Amendment ONLY applies to the State restricting or prohibiting speech. It absolutely does not apply to private corporations or non-governmental entities, nor does it shield you from the consequences of your speech.