Should this be unconstitutional under the 1st amendment

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1415727354463281159

Talking about the admin reporting.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No because there's no requirement that Facebook remove them. It's basically just the Administration reporting posts to the moderator.

[Big Abraham]

No because there's no requirement that Facebook remove them. It's basically just the Administration reporting posts to the moderator.

I'm sure the technocratic liberal Biden administration accusing posts of "disinformation" (which is the usual designation for anything which contravenes the wisdom of the technocratic liberal media) to a technocratic liberal corporation will indeed be very fair and not at all politically motivated

You're absolutely fooling yourself if you think the practical effect of this will be anything other than the federal government effecting the suppression and censure of posts hyperbolically labelled "extremism" under the guise of the free market. We do not have a misinformation problem in this country. We have a problem with a trust in media - and for good reason.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm of the opinion the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook/Twitter etc anyways.

[dead0man]

Facebook should be able to remove anything they want, just like any other entity that allows people to say things through it/on it/with it/whatever.  I don't think they should remove anything, but it should be their call to make.  Not mine, not yours and not the govts.

The govt should have zero say in the matter.  Maybe they can ask Facebook (or whomever) nicely for ISP info if someone posts a video of a crime being committed, but FB shouldn't give it to 'em unless FB wants to (or they get a warrant).

[brucejoel99]

I don't really see a solid legal argument for unconstitutionality here, no. Big Abraham's usual, Trump-esque, horseshoe theory-induced musings aside, there's nothing in the 1st Amendment that prevents the government &/or government officials from expressing their thoughts &/or advocating for such a private action as this to be taken. Barring proof that the private party liable to take action was unduly coerced &/or compelled into doing so, it's still a private - & not state - action.

[SteveRogers]

I'm of the opinion the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook/Twitter etc anyways.

Your opinion is incorrect.

[Donerail]

I don't really see a solid legal argument for unconstitutionality here, no. Big Abraham's usual, Trump-esque, horseshoe theory-induced musings aside, there's nothing in the 1st Amendment that prevents the government &/or government officials from expressing their thoughts &/or advocating for such a private action as this to be taken. Barring proof that the private party liable to take action was unduly coerced &/or compelled into doing so, it's still a private - & not state - action.

State action doctrine is usually interpreted a little broader than that, where government authorization or approval can support a finding of state action. Not saying you'd definitely find one here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that a private company doing something explicitly and only because the government told them to do so could be described as a state actor, and if it's a state actor it would of course be limited by the 1A

[politicallefty]

I don't really see a solid legal argument for unconstitutionality here, no. Big Abraham's usual, Trump-esque, horseshoe theory-induced musings aside, there's nothing in the 1st Amendment that prevents the government &/or government officials from expressing their thoughts &/or advocating for such a private action as this to be taken. Barring proof that the private party liable to take action was unduly coerced &/or compelled into doing so, it's still a private - & not state - action.

I had to actually think about this for a bit, but I think you're right here. The main thing is that it is private action. The First Amendment would certainly come into play if said private action was under executive coercion or compulsion. My hesitation is that any executive power exercised would be flowing from the laws passed by Congress, which are obviously strictly constrained by the First Amendment. However, unless the private company felt coerced or compelled, I don't see how there's any case to be brought into court. I do not see how a private citizen or organization being moderated or banned according to the (agreed upon) terms and conditions of another private organization is basis for an injunction against the executive branch.

[Mister Mets]

If this were unconstitutional, it would mean that politicians and government figures can't respond to any report. If a newspaper were to do an inaccurate piece on a mayor, the mayor wouldn't be able to point out the errors.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It's a bit of a grey area because it's definitely the government attempting to influence a private institution into restricting speech, but no it's not unconstitutional unless they attempt to use government force.