Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jan 9 2021 03:10pm)
I'm aware of the decision regarding PragerU. I question your analysis of the Congressional argument. Telephone (private) companies cannot ban users from their services based on speech they dislike. The First Amendment does not allow for the suppression of speech in a public commons, merely prevents action to be taken against a person over legal but objectionable speech.
So while the PragerU case is a great example of how it would take an act of Congress, I see no reason why a legal defining of public utility would not remove the ability to ban, editorialize, and remove the posts of users.
Frankly, I'm in favor of open communication. Unless it violates the law. I'd like to see social media allow it. However, I'm fully aware that as it stands, they're NOT a utility, NOR are they a publisher. But they're acting as a publisher, without being held to the legal standards of a publisher. 230 as applies to social media simply allows them to not be responsible for anything, yet they can ban what "they don't like". This is something that's not allowed in any "real life" industry anywhere. It's a concern, do you not agree?
Not being forced to host content you don't like is the default, not the rule. Public utilities are an exception and they get benefits in operations in return.
Newspapers don't have to host your content, and have never had to host content they disagreed with. Private message boards are the same. Concert halls don't have to host shows they disagree with. Television stations don't have to host things they disagree with. Etc. etc.
The argument would be to reclassify social media as a public utility, but the problem with that is the definition of "social media" would have to be constructed in such a way that it excludes things like newspapers but includes Twitter, and I'm not convinced that can be done, and if it's too broad it will get struck down, and if it's too narrow it will be easily evaded.