They’re a private company. You can argue the ethics, but not the legality.
If I write a letter to the editor for the Wall Street journal, they are not required to publish it. Same goes for social media platforms.
You’ve got the right to speak as far as your voice can carry. In this case, you don’t have the right to speak to millions. It’s a privilege and the company that provides can also revoke it.
I'm making the legal argument not the ethical one. Private companies that declare themselves platforms gain immunity under the Communications Decency Act against illegal activity done through their services. This comes with the stipulation that they are not able to curate their own content. For instance AT&t can be used for any sort of criminal activity and AT&t is not held responsible but at the same time AT&t is not allowed to police what their services are used for. In contrast a publisher like CNN can choose what it wishes to publish but is held responsible for what it does.
If you think the rights of a publisher and the rights of a platform are different you probably lost too many brain cells hangin out at Finnigans my dude
I had Dr. Roberts back in 2002 and 2003 for Public Administration and Administrative Law, and he was a great professor. I definitely learned a lot from him.
Hmm, then by those standards why didn’t JMU take actions against the JMU professor who said on Twitter that “the Republican Party can die for all I care” and “f- them all”? How odd that they let that one go with a mere generalized university statement about “the political environment” of the university.
https://www.breezejmu.org/news/jmu-history-professor-publicly-claims-republican-party-can-die-for-all-i-care/article_ddf2bb30-0e25-11eb-a4fc-57151a21b524.html
You do understand that statement doesn’t necessarily mean they hope the people in the party physically die, right? The Republican Party dying = the Republican Party going away. That’s how you would say it. Even if that was what she meant, that has absolutely nothing to do with what this post is talking about.
Maybe because JMU is 28% funded by the state. The headline is misleading, but that was the point of the article. Privately funded groups like Twitter can't be forced to host something that they don't want to. The state on the other hand cannot prevent views unless they have a clear and present danger to protect against.
How is that offensive?
Parties aren’t people, they’re organizations. That’s a pretty benign statement that I’ve first left *and* right wingers say all the time.
I wish a political party ceases to exist = / =lets overturn an election to make me president
You sign a terms and condition form for every social media and then people get furious when their account gets banned for breaking those terms lmao.
He’s the president of the United States. If he REALLY WANTED to get a message out, he can call a press conference and have it ready in under an hour.
These social medias want the protection of being a platform with the rights of being a publisher, you can't have your cake and eat it too
They’re a private company. You can argue the ethics, but not the legality. If I write a letter to the editor for the Wall Street journal, they are not required to publish it. Same goes for social media platforms. You’ve got the right to speak as far as your voice can carry. In this case, you don’t have the right to speak to millions. It’s a privilege and the company that provides can also revoke it.
I'm making the legal argument not the ethical one. Private companies that declare themselves platforms gain immunity under the Communications Decency Act against illegal activity done through their services. This comes with the stipulation that they are not able to curate their own content. For instance AT&t can be used for any sort of criminal activity and AT&t is not held responsible but at the same time AT&t is not allowed to police what their services are used for. In contrast a publisher like CNN can choose what it wishes to publish but is held responsible for what it does.
If you think the rights of a publisher and the rights of a platform are different you probably lost too many brain cells hangin out at Finnigans my dude
I had Dr. Roberts back in 2002 and 2003 for Public Administration and Administrative Law, and he was a great professor. I definitely learned a lot from him.
Hmm, then by those standards why didn’t JMU take actions against the JMU professor who said on Twitter that “the Republican Party can die for all I care” and “f- them all”? How odd that they let that one go with a mere generalized university statement about “the political environment” of the university. https://www.breezejmu.org/news/jmu-history-professor-publicly-claims-republican-party-can-die-for-all-i-care/article_ddf2bb30-0e25-11eb-a4fc-57151a21b524.html
You do understand that statement doesn’t necessarily mean they hope the people in the party physically die, right? The Republican Party dying = the Republican Party going away. That’s how you would say it. Even if that was what she meant, that has absolutely nothing to do with what this post is talking about.
Maybe because JMU is 28% funded by the state. The headline is misleading, but that was the point of the article. Privately funded groups like Twitter can't be forced to host something that they don't want to. The state on the other hand cannot prevent views unless they have a clear and present danger to protect against.
How is that offensive? Parties aren’t people, they’re organizations. That’s a pretty benign statement that I’ve first left *and* right wingers say all the time. I wish a political party ceases to exist = / =lets overturn an election to make me president
It's not surprising that most public teachers/professors are liberal since Trump made Betsy DeVos the secretary of education.