Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit
-
https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-says-fact-checks-are-opinion/
Facebook claims that false "fact checks" are protected speech/opinions under the 1st Amendment, even when used to label someone a liar.
Not surprisingly, liberals are claiming that FACTS are opinions.
I wonder if I said that Zuck the Cuck was a child molester if he would accept that it was my 1st Amendment right to claim such a thing as protected speech/opinion.
Of course, Ms Feng Feng the CCP/DNC agent (aka @bi4smooth) will rush in to defend Facebook and Zuck, because businesses can do no wrong in his eyes.
-
@raphjd Ridiculous. "Do as I say, not as I do". The very premise they are using to boot people off their platform for "lying" is per their attorneys only an opinion. But their opinion is "Free Speech" while yours is an assault against humanity for merely disagreeing by pointing out real facts (which they simultaneously call an opinion and a lie while lying to defeat your position). This is the recent contorted logic adopted by those with opposing opinions in this forum as well. Where did logic go?
-
Sigh...
Once again you misinterpret the First Amendment:
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.
Nowhere does that place limits on what employers can place on employees (an employer in Chicago once fired an employee for wearing a Green Bay Packers sweatshirt to work! - that's American Football for those not in the US). Nor individuals inhibiting the speech of other individuals - so long as none of them are "the Governemnt"
In fact, employers ROUTINELY limit the free speech of their employees (non-disclosure agreements, anyone?)
The salient point about 1st Amendment protections is that they protect citizens (including corporations) from GOVERNMENT interference!
- You have no freedom from an employer restricting your speech (thou shalt not curse in front of customers). Neither you, nor your employer can be arrested when you're fired for calling a "Karen" a "screaming bitch"...
- You have no freedom from a business owner restricting your speech (you can't wear that t-shirt in my store!). Neither you nor the store owner can be arrested when he throws you out for wearing a Trump (or Biden) t-shirt in his store!
Now, there HAVE been exceptions carved out: you can be arrested for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room, provided that there is no actual fire...
If you're actually interested in what the US 1st Amendment does (and does not) do, check out this set of lectures: there are 12 of them, each close to an hour in length.
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/the-first-amendment-and-you-what-everyone-should-knowOf course, if you just want to scream hyperbole about Facebook, don't bother...
(For what it's worth: Facebook's court filings have nothing to do with First Amendment speech - the suit is about libel, not censorship. The US Government is not on trial, and the rules about libel have nothing to do with the exercise of Free Speech.)
-
@bi4smooth
You are quite right to a point. Users of Facebook and other social media platforms are not their employees. It is also the governments responsibility to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the citizens from being infringed. -
@geobear40 said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
@bi4smooth
You are quite right to a point. Users of Facebook and other social media platforms are not their employees. It is also the governments responsibility to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the citizens from being infringed.Please - PLEASE - listen to some of the lectures I posted above.
The Government DOES NOT protect your First Amendment Rights from others!
The First Amendment protects YOU from the Government!
The restrictions described in the First Amendment apply SOLELY to the Government! It is the Government who CANNOT infringe your right to free speech! Other people, other organizations, other groups of people, ABSOLUTELY can limit your free speech! It's a free country!
IT IS ONLY THE GOVERNMENT WHO CANNOT - under the First Amendment. There are other limitations placed on PEOPLE's (and organizations') free speech rights. Copyright laws & libel laws are easy examples.
NOTE: when I libel you, I will face CIVIL charges, not criminal ones! Likewise, if I infringe your copyright, I am CIVILLY charged, not criminally! The Government does not charge me with libel or copyright infringement, some other person (or people) do! And, it's not a First Amendment case!
There have been tons of court cases:
- Can the Government sue me for libel because I called the President a fascist (or claimed he impregnated a communist spy)? NO This is a First Amendment issue - I can say anything I want about the Government - even libelous things!
- Can the President him/herself sue me for libel? NO This is also a First Amendment issue: although, if the complaint didn't have a governmental component - e.g. I claimed Mr. Trump fixed the Ms Universe pageants in the 1990s in exchange for sexual favors), he could sue AFTER his term as President ended (and he was no longer President), but not while he was President (as President, he IS the Executive Branch of the US Government!)
- Can I sue the Government for libel? YES the First Amendment protections ONLY apply to the Government!
- Can the Government sue a newspaper to prevent them from publishing stolen plans for invading another country? NO They are protected by the First Amendment!
- Can the filmmakers of the new Harry Potter flick sue a newspaper to prevent them from publishing stolen scripts and revealing the plot of the movie? YES The movie company is NOT the Government! There is no First Amendment protection for the paper against suits, or even censorship of copyrighted material, from individuals!
-
@bi4smooth Your postings are disrespectful to those of differing opinion and vast experience in life. I appreciate your logic, and use of English, however, this does not excuse a paternalistic arrogance that is highly unwarranted.
You will lose your intended effect if you rail along political lines that dismiss any differing views in the tone of your arguments.
Did you read Facebook's argument? Are you aware of the owners and motives of sites such as Snopes and other "fact checkers"?
Die-hard liberalism and conservatism are no better than severe Communism or Fascism. The Bolsheviks strongly supported their motives, but Ukranian genocide from starvation and executions was the result. Armenians suffered the same fate, as did the Jewish population of Germany, along with homosexuals. Regardless of whom you support and do no support, I believe a reasonability and respect would go a long way in seeking accord.
While we debate which fire hose to use, our societies are burning down, large financial institutions are manipulating a vast global control system, and we become the frogs in slowly heating water. It's not about liberal/conservative... it's about what's happening underneath the feet of all of us.
-
@boltvolts
Very True, Trump was so hated because he was a threat to the Deep State.@bi4smooth
I have read the exact text and it is: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.
If you stick to a strict definition of the text it leaves open the change for the President to by executive order to curtail the any of those laws.
Example: The President can bar the Press from being present at any and all government events and sites. He can decree that all employees of the government must be Christians.
-
@boltvolts said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
@bi4smooth Your postings are disrespectful to those of differing opinion and vast experience in life. I appreciate your logic, and use of English, however, this does not excuse a paternalistic arrogance that is highly unwarranted.
You will lose your intended effect if you rail along political lines that dismiss any differing views in the tone of your arguments.
Did you read Facebook's argument? Are you aware of the owners and motives of sites such as Snopes and other "fact checkers"?
Die-hard liberalism and conservatism are no better than severe Communism or Fascism. The Bolsheviks strongly supported their motives, but Ukranian genocide from starvation and executions was the result. Armenians suffered the same fate, as did the Jewish population of Germany, along with homosexuals. Regardless of whom you support and do no support, I believe a reasonability and respect would go a long way in seeking accord.
While we debate which fire hose to use, our societies are burning down, large financial institutions are manipulating a vast global control system, and we become the frogs in slowly heating water. It's not about liberal/conservative... it's about what's happening underneath the feet of all of us.
The Facebook lawsuit isn't as clear-cut as people who "claim" a first-amendment component make it out to be...
THAT IS MY POINT!
And I haven't been able to get PAST that point to talk about the actual merits (or lack thereof) of their case.
The case brought against Facebook (and Meta) is a LIBEL case: the plaintiffs claim they were LIBELED by Facebook when they labeled his posts as false, misleading, or whatever the case may have been here...
There is no 1st Amendment component here, as the only role the Government is playing is that they're providing the judge to hear the case - in a CIVIL courtroom!
Facebook is, in their defense, claiming that their labels of this content is an "opinion" - and this is an easy (and obvious) defense strategy to predict, as opinions are protected from libel lawsuits! I'd be amazed if the plaintiffs were surprised by such a claim.
But to explain what I mean (using what I wrote above):
- I can say that I believe that Mr. Trump may have exchanged Miss Universe wins for sexual favors in the 1990s - and be protected from libel
- But, if I claim it as a fact, and use that to impune Mr Trump's (or the pageant's) credibility, and I cannot prove it to be true (or at least show that I made a good faith effort to ensure that it is true), then I may be guilty of libel, and be subject to fines payable to Mr. Trump (or the Miss Universe Pageant), or other civil penalties... but regardless of how libelous my content, I will not go to jail because of it.
It's questionable whether Facebook will "get away" with it... but even then, the issue won't be so much that they removed the post, but rather that they claimed the writer was intentionally spreading falsehoods.
It will be an interesting case. I'm not a lawyer (but I did study the First Amendment in detail 40 years ago in college!)
-
@geobear40 said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
@boltvolts
Very True, Trump was so hated because he was a threat to the Deep State.@bi4smooth
I have read the exact text and it is: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.
If you stick to a strict definition of the text it leaves open the change for the President to by executive order to curtail the any of those laws.
Example: The President can bar the Press from being present at any and all government events and sites. He can decree that all employees of the government must be Christians.
Examples such as that have been litigated up to the US Supreme Court, which has found that, barring exigent circumstances (like an act of war), the US President can not bypass the 1st Amendment protections afforded by the Constitution. (I'll look for a citation...)
Scholars will tell you that the framers never intended for the US President to have so much power... the "real power" was supposed to rest in Congress.
Things haven't worked out that way... LOL
-
@bi4smooth
The President is currently acting under the Emergency Power he thinks he has due to COVID.Those examples are possible under Liberal or Conservative Presidents or Governors.
-
Facebook (all big tech) publicly claim that their "fact checks" are factual.
In this lawsuit, as always, they are singing a completely different tune.
Now their "fact checks" are simply OPINION.
Strangely enough, they still maintain that their "fact checks" are completely factual on their site. They don't allow appeals to "fact check" claims based on them being "accurate and well researched".
-
@geobear40 said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
@bi4smooth
The President is currently acting under the Emergency Power he thinks he has due to COVID.Those examples are possible under Liberal or Conservative Presidents or Governors.
Talking to you about this is like talking about calculus with a 5-year-old...
The President using Executive Powers is not Facebook, and Facebook is not an arm of the US Government.
The fact that you cannot understand the difference is equivalent to explaining what in integral is to someone who can't understand multiplication yet...
So, let's just let this go... you can believe that Facebook is a pawn of Biden, the Dems, the N Koreans, the S Koreans, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Russians, and the Chinese for all it matters...
The FACT is that attorneys (who do understand these things - for most of them, better than you and I put together, even if that isn't saying much) are now arguing about this is a Court... with a real Judge... Perhaps (just thinking aloud here...), just maybe... we should let them decide the case before we jump too far into the rabbit-hole?
-
@raphjd said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
Facebook (all big tech) publicly claim that their "fact checks" are factual.
In this lawsuit, as always, they are singing a completely different tune.
Now their "fact checks" are simply OPINION.
Strangely enough, they still maintain that their "fact checks" are completely factual on their site. They don't allow appeals to "fact check" claims based on them being "accurate and well researched".
The Meta claim is that they are protected by their First Amendment rights - not from you, who wants your crap posted - but, from Government intrusion into their private enterprise... that which you call Facebook.
It remains to be seen if those claims will hold water... but, either way, they aren't claiming the factual or non-factual basis as a defense, rather that the Government cannot interfere regardless because their "editing" of their site is protected by their 1st Amendment rights.
As for their PR defense for removing posts conflicting with their LEGAL defense for the same.... well that is unique...
NOT!
-
AGAIN, since you are slow.
Facebook claims publicly that their fact checks are "accurate and well researched" which is why there is no appeal.
HOWEVER, in the lawsuit, they are claiming that the fact checks are nothing but opinion.
Which is it?
-
@raphjd said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
AGAIN, since you are slow.
Facebook claims publicly that their fact checks are "accurate and well researched" which is why there is no appeal.
HOWEVER, in the lawsuit, they are claiming that the fact checks are nothing but opinion.
Which is it?
You truly cannot read, can you?
Making a "public relations" statement to "defend" your actions is NOT THE SAME as making a legal argument...
Maybe BOTH are true: maybe the fact checks are based on truth/fiction, and maybe they're protected because those decisions can be called an opinion...
Maybe BOTH are false: maybe the fact checks are based on political bias, and those actions are not protected...
Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...My point is: this is now before a court and a jury... how 'bout we let them decide? With ALL the facts that the plaintiff and ALL the facts that the defendant care to muster!
Of course, you, with your Russian troll masters and your Tucker Carlson blood transfusions (oops: opinion transfusions), naturally think you already have all the information you need: Facebook = bad Why should you need data or testimony to back that up?
-
Why are you calling Facebook's TOS a "public relations statement"?
There TOS says that fac checks are "accurate and well researched" which is why there is no right to appeal. At the same time, they claim that their fact checks are simply OPINION.
Obviously, as you are an agent of the CCP/DNC, you love Facebook since they are doing your bidding.
-
@raphjd said in Facebook uses 1st Amendment in lawsuit:
Why are you calling Facebook's TOS a "public relations statement"?
There TOS says that fac checks are "accurate and well researched" which is why there is no right to appeal. At the same time, they claim that their fact checks are simply OPINION.
Obviously, as you are an agent of the CCP/DNC, you love Facebook since they are doing your bidding.
I have no skin in that game: I have no Facebook (or any other Meta) account.
"Terms of Service" statements are not legal arguments!
Let's drop this... you can't get past the blanket statement: Facebook = bad so there is no point. If they came out against child molesters, you'd find a negative spin, so there is no point in taking this farther...
