26 Apr 2022 9:59 am
Cannonpointer » 25 Apr 2022, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑ No, it isn't.
Prohibiting censorship is neither censorship nor content control. It is merely making the game rules of PUBLIC corporations conform to PUBLIC policy.
It is against public policy for banks - even private ones - to discriminate based on race. Is that government control of a bank's lending scheme? Or is it creating public policy to which that bank and all of its competitors must adhere?
People have rights - but so do societies as such. When we take a man's property through eminent domain, a crime has been committed agaist him - for the public good. So it is legal. A legal crime. Because the public - as such, as the public - has interests which will sometimes override private interests.
I'm aware that there are cases where the government can act somewhat unlawfully. However, and this is to the best of my knowledge from author Alec Ross, the internet companies themselves decide what or what not the content they will allow or will ban from their platforms. At least that is what is true in the United States as common internet practice and custom.
Could the government intervene? Probably. Laws could be passed to regulate social media to allow free speech, ect. There would be questions of legality that would tie up the courts and some of those cases probably would reach the Supreme Court docket.
Internet speech legislation has not been tried on the federal level since the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The laws are old and the amount of lobbying in Washington by internet companies is fierce. These are just my observations. Free speech is an inherent right but the government can curtail rights sometimes.
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.