Jul 08, 2008 01:01AM GMT
Question
•
Technology - General Computers & Electronics
Does the 1st amendment guarantee free speech on the internet?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080706/D91OGQ680.html"NEW YORK (AP) - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services - from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video - become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms."
Loading...-
raves +2 posted Sep 09, 2008 12:54AM GMT
Answered Yes
Long as what one says, is not life threatening to another person. But to gurantee free speech on line is one thing, while the matter of offending or not offending another person with how you express yourself is another. The right to free speech, online or off, has no bearing on wether or not someone gets offended. -
raves +1 posted Jul 15, 2008 12:56AM GMT (edited)
Answered No
Get real, people. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anything anywhere! You don't have any rights. They don't exist. We made them up! What you have, if you were lucky enough to be born into the right society at the right time, are a few privileges. Use them wisely. -
raves +1 posted Jul 14, 2008 01:29AM GMT
Answered Yes
While limited restriction of particularly offensive matter is permissible (such as banning child pornography), for the most part "speech" on the internet is entitled to the same protection as speech anywhere else.
That said, however, if I own a website, I have a right to decide what I want posted on my website, just as if I owned a newspaper and controlled what was published in it. This does not mean that the first amendment does not apply on the internet, since you are always free to set up your own website and say what you want on it. -
raves +3 posted Jul 12, 2008 06:40PM GMT (edited)
Answered Yes
Great poll Art but you are completely wrong about this. In spite of the last 8 years of government this is still America, the best country in the world !
"The importance of the Internet as the "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," requires that the courts perpetually uphold the freedom of speech."
http://epic.org/free_speech/c...
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law that outlawed "indecent" communications online. Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.
There are many other free speech cases at the Supreme Court level that have upheld this, ASHCROFT VS. ACLU etc.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/s... -
raves +3 posted Jul 11, 2008 02:52AM GMT
Answered Yes
Which is why net neutrality is so important.
The internet has replaced the public square as the place of expression for Americans. Companies providing an avenue for expression should be constrained from censoring content other than that violating terms of service or community standards.
What if Comcast were to block any traffic derogatory of their company or contrary to the views of its board of directors? -
raves +1 Jul 11, 2008 08:58PM GMTThe government should not interfere in TV and movies regarding political speech as they have done based on McCain-Feingold:
http://electionlawblog.org/ar...
Hollywood can keep making anti-war movies nobody watches and we conservatives can make our points too. -
raves +2 Jul 11, 2008 09:54PM GMTWhen it's actions of a 527 group or a campaign committee in question, speech as advocacy or opposition is confined to conformity with federal election law.
Oh, and you didn't answer my question.
Here's "Citizens United"'s original name and logo.
Do you approve? Does your wife or mother?
-
raves +2 Jul 11, 2008 11:40PM GMTI have never seen that logo and I find it inappropriate. If this is not a scam, then I condemn it but it does not argue against the point that political speech is the form of speech most protected by the constitution and if 'MoveOn' can smear one of the USA's best generals, then at least Citizen's United can make their points too.
Yes, conform with a Federal election law that violates the constitution.
We can expect a lot more of these types of laws under McCain and a HECK of a lot more with an Obama administration. -
raves +1 Jul 12, 2008 01:24AM GMTIt's not a scam, Art. And Citizens United (Not TImid) exists only to cast Hillary Clinton in a bad light.
"Free" speech is granted by the Constitution not to corporations or PACs or 527 groups, but to individual citizens. And would you not agree that political advocacy or opposition pieces constructed solely for that purpose should at least be identified as such?
Citizens United, as a 527 group, must play by the rules.
To your point about MoveOn, (and based on the article you quoted in the question, we are WILDLY off-topic) they obeyed the law in the pieces about General Petraeus, identifying the ads as being sponsored by MoveOn PAC, a 527 group.
It is NOT muzzling of free speech to advise the people witnessing it exactly who is paying for it to be said. -
raves +1 Jul 12, 2008 02:07AM GMTWell I met somebody from CU and no, that is not why they exist. You seem to have your facts wrong.
>It is NOT muzzling of free speech to advise the people witnessing it exactly who is paying for it to be said.
It is a direct violation of the 1st amendment because political speech is exactly what they do but it seems the left likes to silence people that disagree with them. -
raves +1 Jul 12, 2008 09:44AM GMT (edited)Well I am not sure you are even right...maybe but this is the first time I see it.
If it is true, I condemn it...I am consistent and have standards of decency. I wish more leftists had standards of decency. We see much worse regularly all over the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Huffington Post and MoveOn.
What is most important is the left's attempt to silence the right.
No sir...MoveOn has not always 'played by the rules' and has been thoroughly disgraceful as an organization.
Will you condemn the outrageous smear of General Petraeus? -
raves +2 Jul 12, 2008 02:10PM GMTI believe General Petraeus allowed himself and his uniform to be used politically. Plenty of previous generals remained above the fray, but Petraeus was all too willing to be the public face of the Bu$h administration's disastrous Iraq policy and execution. Do you not see that?
The military is a tool of our government, but not a PR tool. That's what was truly disgraceful, that the administration was willing to blur that line and use the general to lend legitimacy to their bad policy.
Show me, from your own PERSONAL experience, the "much worse" of which you speak. Do not provide me the cherry-picked finds of some right-wing talking head's producers. Show me where YOU have found "indecency" on DailyKos, etc.
And have you heard of "free speech zones"? Do you know what they are? Where they're used? And why?
Who's trying to silence whom? -
raves +1 Jul 13, 2008 10:41PM GMTFirst, since General Clark retired in 2000, that picture would be one of an Army General greeting his Commander-in-Chief. Weak, Art. Very weak. In no way does that image connote political support.
Next, I ask if you are a veteran because one who has worn the uniform and gone where Uncle Sam says go has a perspective on res militaria that a civilian could never understand.
I ask so I can know what your perspective is. -
raves +1 Jul 13, 2008 10:50PM GMTNo? Oh I see so you seem to have a circular argument.
If he is using 'appear(ing) in uniform to support and promote the political goals of any party or administration'
then he is greeting the CIC.
So by your argument, there is not way for him to do such a thing...unless he is a general you do not like, then he isn't just doing his job, he is a politician.
Unlike Clark (a giant political tool) Petraeus actually wins wars and doesn't sit around as tens of thousands of civilians are ethnically cleansed. Clark failed to save innocent lives and as his colleagues in the military have remarked he has tremendous integrity issues.
Thank you General Petraeus for taking a difficult task and bringing about victory....most Americans appreciate it.
>Next, I ask if you are a veteran because one who has worn the uniform and gone where Uncle Sam
Oh really?
You do comment on law and order...are you a prosecuting attorney or a cop?
You do comment on abortion...do perform abortions or have you had one?
You comment on politics...do you hold public office? -
raves +1
Answered No
While the 1st amendment places limits on government to regulate political speech, it does not place limits on private companies to regulate speech.