Judge Rejects Tulsi Gabbard's 'Free Speech' Lawsuit Against Google (techcrunch.com) 175
Last July, Hawaii representative and long-shot presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard sued Google for infringing on her free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign's advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June. On Wednesday, California's Central District Court rejected the suit outright. TechCrunch reports: Gabbard's campaign, Tulsi Now, Inc., asked for $50 million in damages from Google for "serious and continuing violations of Tulsi's right to free speech." In the suit, her campaign claimed that Google "helps to run elections" through political advertising and search results -- an argument District Judge Stephen Wilson firmly rejected. In dismissing the case, Wilson writes that what Gabbard "fails to establish is how Google's regulation of its own platform is in any way equivalent to a governmental regulation of an election." When it comes to Google, "an undisputedly private company," the First Amendment's free speech protections do not apply. A week ago, another California court reached the same conclusion in a case that right-wing group PragerU brought against YouTube.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Right after they do the same to Fox News.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't see too many high-level Republicans regularly featured and on staff at MSNBC or CNN..."
You haven't looked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Michael Steele - former RNC President
Nicole Wallace - WH Communication director under George W Bush
Joe Scarborough- 4 term GOP Congessman
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I don't cite Citizens United as a travesty but instead see it as the only possible correct ruling. Corporations aren't people, nobody said they are. Corporations, however, are comprised of people and those people have free speech.
I'm consistent - this ruling is correct and CU was correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations, however, are comprised of people and those people have free speech.
This is the bit a lot of people don't understand. I have free speech, and can buy stuff to promote that speech. My neighbor has free speech, and can buy stuff to promote that speech. If we pool our money to buy stuff to promote our mutual speech, our freedom of speech doesn't go away.
If you don't think that's a fair argument, this was essentially the government's argument when trying to defend the campaign finance laws that got struck down. That you have an *individual* right to free speech, not a collectiv
Re: (Score:3)
A collective right of free speech is fine. And there is a right to freely associate with people. But there is not a right to freely associate with people and enjoy the protection from financial liability that shareholders have in corporations, or to enjoy tax benefits such as in non-profits.
I have no problem with the grant of such benefits being conditioned. If you want an association with absolute free speech, form a simple partnership, where each partner is responsible for each of the others and the who
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter. They don't have a Right to form a corporation; they're allowed to by law. OK. But that doesn't mean you can take away their speech rights while they do it.
Just like, the State can control where you drive and when, and take away your license, because it is a right, not a privilege. But they can't tell you what bumper stickers you're allowed to have, your speech is still your own even while exercising a privilege created by statute.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean privilege, not a right, and I typed it backwards. Fire at will, I won't apologize. Only offer this correction.
Re: (Score:2)
The state can certainly say that corporations are allowed to x and not allowed to do y, and that if they do z they must also do a, provided that these are conditions of their existence, because it is not mandatory that the government allow corporations to exist at all, and it is not mandatory that the government allow corporations to exist for general purposes as opposed to narrow ones that do not encompass speech.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as x, y, and z are permitted by the Constitution, then yes. Speech restrictions may not be included in x, y, or z.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You wrote two sentences. The second one contradicts the first.
That is why this argument was already lost, and the result will never change. Speech rights are not removed with the wave of a hand in the US. You have it exactly backwards; you can more easily regulate how they pool their resources than how they speak collectively.
Re: (Score:2)
>This is the bit a lot of people don't understand. I have free speech, and can buy stuff to promote that speech. My neighbor has free speech, and can buy stuff to promote that speech. If we pool our money to buy stuff to promote our mutual speech, our freedom of speech doesn't go away.
That's fine, as long as you personally are responsible for that speech. Corporations, on the other hand, are immune from all manner of things that would get an individual sent to jail. I don't think anyone should have the
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations, on the other hand, are immune from all manner of things that would get an individual sent to jail.
What are those?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if I stalked you, took copious notes on your every movement, photographed you every few seconds, and recorded every word you said - the cops would haul me off to the gulag. Otoh when Big Brother Google does the same thing, he is protected by the government.
Google does none of those things. Google does collect some information when you use their services. And some web sites give information to Google when you use their services. If you were providing similar services and collecting similar information, no one would haul you off to jail.
Re: (Score:3)
None of that has anything to do with this case though. It's not even a free speech issue.
Google has a commercial advertising business. They chose not to do business with this individual at that time. It's more akin to the famous gay cake case, except that being a politician is not a protected class so she doesn't have a case.
Re: (Score:2)
I support just about any Constitutional plan to get money out of elections, even having federal funding, federally run debates, etc., but I agree with this; Citizens United was a legally correct ruling. Free speech rights apply to individuals, they apply to the local church group, they apply to civic groups and non-profits, there is no way to say that shareholders can't speak through their corporation. And currently, everybody else is allowed to spend money as speech, so they can too.
Federal funding for ele
Re: The bias should be recognized by the judge (Score:2)
"there is no way to say that shareholders can't speak through their corporation"
Sure there is. Corporations don't even appear in the Constitution. Corporations HAVE NO RIGHTS. Rights are for human beings. The Law need only say that a corporation is not a vehicle for political speech, nor may it be a tool for stifling the political speech of others.
Such a law would in no way infringe the right of the Owners to personal free speech. Even if you believe that money is speech - surely a bald lie if ever there wa
Re: (Score:3)
No. It was too expansive. It allows anonymous corporations, funded by foreign sources, to put money into elections. That part is not supported by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they are foreign citizens.
Citizens united has allowed foreign citizens to put large amounts of money into election campaigns with no accounting of the true sources.
It's simpler than that (Score:2)
Every American has the right to democracy, whether enumerated or not.Google et al have become so powerful, they are platforms innate to democratic debate aka the public sphere.If the US had sane laws, Google would have been fined ~$5bn.
The suit was a long shot but change is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has 92% of the global search market, and 73% of the advertising market. The influence they wield can't be overstated. It's a largely unregulated business that can sway elections and destroy businesses and individuals at will.
Current legislation hasn't caught up to this situation but eventually it will. I don't know what the outcome will be. Perhaps they will be broken up like Standard Oil and AT&T, or just tightly regulated to protect consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have 73% of the global advertising market. That's what we in the biz like to call "made up".
Well if you Google "google percentage of advertising market" you get a box at the top of the results that says:
"Google will have a 73 percent market share by year's end, according to the analysis. By 2021, eMarketer predicts that Google's share will drop to 70.5 percent of the market. At an estimated 12.9 percent, Amazon's market share for 2019 will be much smaller than Google's.Oct 15, 2019"
So don't blame me, I gave you what Google gave me
Re:The suit was a long shot but change is needed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: The suit was a long shot but change is needed (Score:2)
"Congress shall ..."
What does that mean?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
What's that for?
Re: (Score:2)
"Congress shall ..." means that the citizens of the United States have a privilege of the government not being able to take away their free speech rights. The 14th amendment says no state may make or enforce any law which abridges the 'privileges and immunities' of citizens of the United States.
Re:The suit was a long shot but change is needed (Score:4, Informative)
ALL amendments are are federal government facing.
No, the 13th Amendment prohibits anyone from engaging in slavery. It doesn't only restrict the government. (In fact, it foolishly gives government a limited exception)
Re: (Score:3)
Where the hell did you come up with that stupid idea? Ever hear of the 14th amendment? In case you haven't, here is part of it:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of l
Re: (Score:2)
Google has 92% of the global search market, and 73% of the advertising market. The influence they wield can't be overstated. It's a largely unregulated business that can sway elections and destroy businesses and individuals at will.
Current legislation hasn't caught up to this situation but eventually it will. I don't know what the outcome will be. Perhaps they will be broken up like Standard Oil and AT&T, or just tightly regulated to protect consumers.
You have failed to prove that private companies are the federal government.
I never said they were, because it's irrelevant. The Federal government regulates private businesses, and the Federal government can sue to break them up if they are considered to be a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law against being a monopoly, so on what grounds would they sue (and win)? Standard Oil and AT&T were not broken up because they were monopolies, they were broken up because they used anti-competitive measures to maintain that monopoly. Becoming (and maintaining) a monopoly position by being the first, or the best, or the best known, or even a defacto standard is not illegal. Becoming (or maintaining) a monopoly position by buying your competitors (ot their suppliers), or requiring people
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law against being a monopoly, so on what grounds would they sue (and win)? Standard Oil and AT&T were not broken up because they were monopolies, they were broken up because they used anti-competitive measures to maintain that monopoly. Becoming (and maintaining) a monopoly position by being the first, or the best, or the best known, or even a defacto standard is not illegal. Becoming (or maintaining) a monopoly position by buying your competitors (ot their suppliers), or requiring people to only use your equipment on your network, etc MAY be illegal.
I love how people like to pretend that control of information is some new phenomenon, and that it is somehow worthy of special controls on free speech. Have you never heard of newspapers, or newspaper empires? They absolutely controlled the information people got, and alternatives (if any) could be hard to find. And yet they were not 'broken up'. Why? Because of this little thing called the 1st amendment, and the 'freedom of the press' protected by it.
OK, so you believe that:
I disagree on both.
Re:The suit was a long shot but change is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a matter of scale. When Russians spend $2000 on a miniscule anti-Hillary ad campaign, that's not enough for me to be concerned. When Google has a monopoly on global advertising, that is concerning to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of scale. When Russians spend $2000 on a miniscule anti-Hillary ad campaign, that's not enough for me to be concerned. When Google has a monopoly on global advertising, that is concerning to me.
Well, Google is very, very far from having a monopoly on global advertising, so I guess that means it's not concerning to you?
Google may be the wrong focus? (Score:4, Insightful)
My opinion is, all of this just speaks to the larger problem; WAY too much spending on campaigns!
People constantly complain about the country being run by too many "rich old white men", but America has historically ALWAYS been like that. When the nation got started though, it happened by necessity. (You had to be wealthy enough to have the luxury of taking 4 years of your life to devote to running the country, with the possibility you'd get elected for another 4 -- during a time when most poorer people or minorities lacked enough basic education to do the job properly, even if people wanted to vote them in to do it. It only made sense for well-off land-owners to run for President.)
These days, wealth really only comes into play because the "norm" is spending many millions of dollars on ad campaigns all over the mass media. Google isn't much of a content producer. It's much more of an indexing service to OTHER people's content, which you can opt to spend money on to get more searches to arrive at your content destination. In that sense, they don't "sway elections and destroy businesses" any more than the rest of the commercial media does. When the TV commercials lie to you, it's because a candidate is willing to pour a bunch of money into broadcasting that lie. When Google "lies to you" about the same thing, it's probably because a candidate was willing to pour a bunch of money into searches directing you to their lie.
Look how many useful things could have been accomplished with the money Bloomberg spent on his campaigning! And what's he have to show for it now?
If there's any legislation about "campaign reform" I think would really help, it would be putting strict limits on how much spending a candidate can do during an election. I'd like to see them placed on a tight budget for a Presidential election, where over-spending means automatic disqualification. Not only would this give the "average Joe" more of a real shot at running a competitive campaign -- but it would encourage candidates who proved they know how to stretch a dollar! That's exactly the kind of President I want in office, spending my tax dollars.
It cuts both ways (Score:2)
They use Google for its reach and then file suit against Google for its reach?
You can't have Falstaff and have him thin.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I like that line about Falstaff. I haven't heard it before. Is it yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is having more competition in advertising a problem? I'd be fine if Google were broken up.
Breach of Contract with Malice (Score:2)
She shouldn't win on 1A grounds but she should get them on contract or fraud grounds.
Even though 1A doesn't apply to corporations the social value of free speech certainly does and everybody ought to judge Google harshly for their admitted support of the MIC candidates.
Bullshit (Score:2)
Did or did not Google Accept government funding when they started up?
How much of that did they pay back?
Also, the advertising. They entered into a contract with the Gabbard campaign. They accepted payment.
They were in breach of contract.
Yeah, if yoi got a monopoly... it DOES apply! (Score:2)
Because Google basically IS a state and government now!
Because there are no realistic alternatives!
If Google decides to censor you, you are dead online. Simple as that.
Oh and yeah, such monopolies are indeed a crime!
And I think letting such a monopoly exist, is a crime committed by the government too! Specifically by judges like this!
Would it be my country, then he'd be in prison for neo-libertarian fascism, and be checkt for links to the Mont Pellerin Society terrorist group.
More interested in why they suspended the account (Score:2)
So why was Gabbards' campaign suspended? Google didn't say why in their defence (they didn't need to) so it's entirely open to speculation. There are already questions around Tulsi Gab
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's totally different because of psuedo-legal wharrgarbl whining about Section 230.
Re: (Score:2)
To be followed by Epoch Times I assure you
Re: (Score:2)
She is just getting started with her attempts to create dissension within the Dem party
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, after cuddling up with that butcher Assad, how much more can she do to embarrass herself. Maybe get close to Putin. He's already got one poodle in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes.
One just has to look at the head of the GOP to see the truth in that.
Pretty much the rest of them all down the line as well.
True paragons of wisdom, those guys.
Re: Great (Score:4, Insightful)
What head? Trump destroyed the Rep party in the Primaries. There is no Republican Party, just the Party of Trump; aka Spineless Brown nosers
And that party couldn't even bring an idea to vote on regarding Healthcare; let alone actually fix it. Despite the fact they basically had absolute power for 2 full years and been complaining about it for 8 years!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She was arguing, as a lot of people wrongly do, that being big and involved in politics made Google functionally akin to a part of the government.
The first amendment does not apply to private enterprise. Logically, it can't possibly apply because you'd be infringing the publisher's free speech and property rights in order to give extra "free publishing" rights to another group.
People when anyone wants to regulate a big polluter: "Get your government hands off my capitalism!"
People when a corporation publish
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's a non trivial problem when private enterprise controls so much power that they _effectively_ are the government - they govern in effect.
Silly example - name one elected official who didn't use private media go become known at all, much less elected. You can't. If for some reason all the private media get on one side of the boat - there's no recourse. It may not be illegal but it's clearly not right. Or moral.
You could argue our government has failed by allowing this - and in fact there ARE law
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a case to be made for reinstating the fairness doctrine, and for reinstating the anti trust laws that used to apply to media companies.
There is a case to be made for government just up and nationalizing big media, but its the exact same case to be made for nationalizing everything. Is that what you want?
Your comments about left and right are nonsensical, and just shows your own bias, as well as what sorts of media you choose to consume, and what you choose to ignore.
Down votes are someone else's free speech. You've never had a right to speech that is free from disagreement or even public censure.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comments about left and right are nonsensical, and just shows your own bias, as well as what sorts of media you choose to consume, and what you choose to ignore.
What did he say that was nonsensical?
Re: (Score:2)
This: "Note that 100% of the censorship (by private outfits presently, but it's still censorship) - is in favor of the left. Zero left wackos get banned or demonetized, and 100's of the other side do, including some pretty weak tea supporters of what used to be normal just a few years ago. Now it seems to be wrong speak to not change as fast to the left as the most radical. That kind of points out who the would-be totalitarians are. Oh wait, if they get their way 100% of the time - and you 'd have to come u
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. It was the left-wing news site Gizmodo who originally broke the story about anti-conservative censorship on facebook. https://gizmodo.com/former-fac... [gizmodo.com]
Have you looked at the data on twitter bans? https://quillette.com/2019/02/... [quillette.com]
Re: (Score:3)
US Intelligence and Robert Mueller's report both concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and they continue to interfere in US elections. Are you going to claim that US Intelligence and Mueller's investigative team are all conspiracy theorists?
If there's any conspiracy theorist in the current discussion, it's you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I read the report. It says the Russians publish propaganda, and that the DNC got hacked. The DNC hack showed us how the democrats conspired and cheated Bernie out of the election, so I'm happy that came to light. As far as the Russians publishing propaganda: No shit. Every country does that. The US does that too through Voice of America. When was that ever in question? I don't see how this is something I should be surprised or concerned about.
Re: Great (Score:2)
So you'd be happy if an EU intelligence service released Trump's peepee tape and got Bernie elected?
Re: (Score:2)
Two wrongs don't make a right. You're okay with anything that helps those you see as your tribe. That shows you have only the most basic moral compass, the type that lets authoritarians manipulate you quite easily. I'm sure you'd cheer the death of democracy in America if it meant your kind ruled without question.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a case to be made for reinstating the fairness doctrine
I can just imagine what the Trump FCC would decide is "honest, equitable, and balanced." My goodness.
You could try to make a case, but it's going to be a doozy.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's a non trivial problem when private enterprise controls so much power that they _effectively_ are the government - they govern in effect.
Silly example - name one elected official who didn't use private media go become known at all, much less elected. You can't. If for some reason all the private media get on one side of the boat - there's no recourse. It may not be illegal but it's clearly not right. Or moral.
You could argue our government has failed by allowing this - and in fact there ARE laws around monopolistic behavior, which perhaps need diddling to apply properly to the current very one sided situation. This is in effect corporations "voting" for outcomes that give them what they want - in effect, super-lobbying.
Without registering or other legal limitations. What definition of fair covers that one?
You could argue that we have lost the rule of law in favor of the rule of men - in this case roughly the democrat establishment - every private outlet seems to be in their thrall. They don't like Bernie, things happen with Bernie. Tulsi, same deal, although it appears the cornflakes she's pissed in are the MICs. Oh, we're still talking the big government dem establishment then. Those who benefit from big government are a self-licking ice cream cone.
MSM virtually 100% in the DNC camp, because crazy gets clicks? Sure, there's one "controlled opposition" outlet.
Right wing conspiracy theorists get banned (as it should be) but then there's Rachel Maddow and host of leftists just as nuts - who are getting megaphones they get paid to shout through.
Note that 100% of the censorship (by private outfits presently, but it's still censorship) - is in favor of the left. Zero left wackos get banned or demonetized, and 100's of the other side do, including some pretty weak tea supporters of what used to be normal just a few years ago. Now it seems to be wrong speak to not change as fast to the left as the most radical. That kind of points out who the would-be totalitarians are. Oh wait, if they get their way 100% of the time - and you 'd have to come up with a good argument that they don't - then they are ALREADY totalitarian.
Does it matter who we call government and who private when what matters is who has the power to make things happen?
And now, with cancel culture, even a perfectly valid argument will probably collect a bunch of down-votes for pointing out an inconvenient truth.
Newspapers.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Right wing conspiracy theorists get banned (as it should be) but then there's Rachel Maddow and host of leftists just as nuts - who are getting megaphones they get paid to shout through.
No they should not get banned. They should be exposed to the light of day where their ideas can live or die on the merits. When you take paranoid people who think the everyone is out to get them, and systematically ban them from public discourse, you prove them right! At that point, violence is their only recourse. As Martin Luther King said, "a riot is the language of the unheard".
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
Rachael Maddow is a centrist. Just look at how she covers actual leftists like Bernie Sanders.
And she is nothing at all like the frothing, low information blow hards on the right. Show me one time she said anything half as crazy as that Sandy hook Truther nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
She accused a news site of being "paid Russian propaganda" because one of their employees did freelance work for a Russian news site once. She provided no evidence that he still works for the Russians, or has any other ties to the Russian government.
Re: (Score:3)
"Once," or twice, or 1300 times. The evidence being Rouz' own statement in OAN's own lawsuit [usatoday.com] against Maddow.
Re: (Score:2)
So at $40 per article, he did about one year's worth of work for them. What's your point? I'm still waiting for the proof that this guy is a Russian spy like Maddow says he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you get the $40 per article from the same place that you got "once"? You certainly got "spy" from the same place. Maddow never claimed that.
My point is that you are not a trustworthy source of information concerning the topic. My point is that this guy has a years-long relationship with a Russian "state news agency" that is wid
Re: Great (Score:3)
Don't like Maddow but how is this even vaguely comparable to eg birtherism, never mind Pizzagate?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, years of Russia Madcow going as batshit crazy as Alex Jones on the subject of Trump and the former Soviet Union? Her 'ermagerd what if Russia shuts off heat to millions of Americans in the cold of winter' was a particular doozy.
Re: (Score:2)
She's only crazy about Trump if Trump is actually sane. Many of us look at Trump and see the worst threat to American democracy the country has ever faced. He rally hates democracy, and wants a dictatorship. And you'd cheer for the death of democracy, right up until the death squads come for you and yours. He's not joking when he says he wants to be Supreme Leader for the rest of his life, and install his kids after that.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that 100% of the censorship (by private outfits presently, but it's still censorship) - is in favor of the left.
Our CDC cannot speak candidly about disease, our NOAA cannot speak candidly about climate change, and private physicians cannot talk to their own patients about abortion.
Conservative mobs are so unmanagable that Mitt Romney's safety could not be guaranteed at CPAC!
That is the truly dangerous cancel culture. It controls 2.5 branches of government, while you complain about free online services.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
The above poster is a total raving lunatic who is likely beyond hope, but for the help of others a brief response to one point:
But it's a non trivial problem when private enterprise controls so much power that they _effectively_ are the government - they govern in effect.
That can happen, but it's an incredibly high bar that almost never does happen. The classic example was Chickasaw, Alabama. It was a company town owned by a shipbuilding company. The company owned the streets. The company owned the sidewalks. The company owned the houses. The company stood in what would normally be the shoes of a municipal government, performing all the same functions. The company tried to control speech in the town but were ultimately prevented from doing so because it was the town, and towns cannot prohibit all manner of speech whether owned by a company or by the public.
Later, this was tried on a shopping mall, but it didn't work because a mall is not as public in nature as an entire town is. And way back in the 90s it was tried online, where a spammer sued AOL to force it to not filter out e-mail spam, and that didn't work either because there was no argument that AOL is not effectively a privately run but all-encompassing government. Lemme know when you'd like spammers to be able to use their free speech rights to compel spam to be injected into every web page, tweet, e-mail, social media post, etc.
Google doesn't govern shit. They don't provide the functions of government, like police and emergency response, they don't control transportation, they don't own venues that are traditionally seen as public squares such as sidewalks, streets, and parks. The comparison is inapt and just makes you look dumb. (But then, the above poster is dumber than a sack of particularly stupid rocks)
Re: (Score:2)
"Lemme know when you'd like spammers to be able to use their free speech rights to compel spam to be injected into every web page, tweet, e-mail, social media post, etc."
That's wrong, and stop it. Giving a tool or right to the good guys gives it to the bad guys. And the first attack usually sees the good guys defend the bad guy's usage.
If their right to free speech allows the above then yes I'd like to see it now. It doesn't. It won't ever, until the government controls enough content on the Internet. Not v
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's wrong, and stop it.
The case was Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Cyber Promotions argued that it had the right to send spam to AOL users. The questions the court looked at were whether it had such a right, and whether AOL had a right to block spam before it reached the users. The court held that AOL was not subject to the First Amendment because private entities are only treated as if they're government entities when either -- The private entity exercises a power that is tr
Re: (Score:2)
"Once," or twice, or 1300 times [usatoday.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Maddow was referring to One America News.
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A.k.a., America's Russian propaganda outlet [thedailybeast.com]:
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
She was arguing, as a lot of people wrongly do, that being big and involved in politics made Google functionally akin to a part of the government.
The first amendment does not apply to private enterprise.
Obviously. Just as obviously, people want free speech, regardless. The fix is a new amendment. A digital bill of rights. The current law doesn't support the will of the people. Let's fix that.
Currently, the best legal effort to make YouTube better for creators is coming from a German union, IGM, which has been representing "gig workers" and has adopted YouTubers as well. They're challenging Google with a very reasonable set of demands. E.g., if they demonetize a video, they must say clearly and specifically why. If they demonetize a channel, or otherwise kick someone off the platform, there must be an independent 3rd-party review board. There's more in the same vein.
These protections are very much in line with German worker protections. It's worth pointing out that in Germany it's explicitly illegal to manage an employee with a bot - my team at Amazon had to be quite careful with this with our labor software. So if the German courts start viewing YouTubers as "gig workers", YouTube is in trouble here.
But even better, and here you can tell the union has good lawyers, they're presenting all their "YouTube must be transparent with demonetization" points as a GDPR complaint. Yup, the basis for deciding whether to ban someone or take down or suppress a video is personal information that must be clearly presented in response to a GDPR request. Genius.
So, America may be behind the curve here in protecting free speech, and a German worker's union may end up being the champion of the people. I'll take it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You are suggesting we curtail the actual free speech and property rights of Google. If you demand someone print something they don't want to, you are infringing on their free speech rights. In this case, the rights of Google's owners.
Just admit you love socialism and government regulations when it does something you want. It's plain for all to see in your comments.
Free speech does not mean free publishing. It never has and it never will.
Here is an example. I require that you publish the following here on Sl
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the notion that this is not a free speech issue, I do not agree that internet and social media companies should not have their speech regulated in this particular arena. At the end of the day, Google and Facebook are primarily advertising companies and ads and access to information have an impact on politics. After all, if an advertising company is putting their finger on the scales to favor a certain candidate, then their actions can be seen as campaign contributions.
We have similar laws
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
You are suggesting we curtail the actual free speech and property rights of Google.
Yes, I 100% am. You got it. Well done.
Public corporations are not people. They do not have rights, except the rights we chose to give them. Let's choose to give them the rights that work out best for everyone.
Just admit you love socialism and government regulations when it does something you want. It's plain for all to see in your comments.
Mmmm hmmm. Don't hink tht dog will hunt, but keep trying.
ere is an example. I require that you publish the following here on Slashdot, verbatim, with no editorializing 'lgw is an authoritarian whose only moral compass is "I'll do what I want, and fuck the rest of y'all"'
You know, the strangest thing just happened. That was, in fact, published on Slashdot. Twice now. Amazing, isn't it?
Seriously, platforms should just publish anything legal. The world won't end. It's better for people rights.
Heck, I require you to buy a loudspeaker
I invite you to consider the difference between people and corporations (specifically, corporations that aren't publicly held - closely held corps and partnerships are just a small group pf people, who might have some purpose other than profit).
Re: (Score:2)
Err, specifically, corporations that are publicly held ...
Re: (Score:3)
Even if corporations are not people and have no rights (i think they should not) the people who own Google do have rights. Google is their proeprty. By forcing them to use their property to broadcast speech they don't agree with, you are infringing their free speech and property rights. It's that simple, there is nothing further to discuss.
There is also the pragmatic argument to be made. We see what happens to sites that don't curate content. They devolve into cesspools of hate that no one sane wants to vis
Re: (Score:2)
Where? When? What sort of evidence so you have of the government bullying private platforms? The only media companies the government could possibly fine are the television broadcasters, who use the public airwaves. The first amendment specifically precludes the government from doing anything like what you say. Media companies self regulate for free market reasons.
Frankly, the only sort of thing even remotely like this that I have ever seen is Trump's yammering about people criticizing him.
Re: (Score:2)
As with the poster below, the closest think I can think of is Trump interfering with Amazon and AT&T contracts/mergers because he doesn't like the news coverage by their affiliated entities.
This indeed should be a scandal, but Trumpkins love it when he plays hardball, and sensible people are focused on his more egregious and easier to prove abuses of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How is it that a sitting member of Congress doesn't know that the First Amendment applies to the government, not to private business?
There is no limit to how bad a "sitting" member of Congress can be. That is obvious.
The lesson of Tulsi Gabbard though doesn't end with her sitting in Congress. It ends with somebody else sitting in Congress, because she is not running for reelection. Why not? She's being primaried by somebody whose views more closely resemble the constituents views. And who has a much higher approval rating in the district.
She isn't merely mediocre or controversial. She has galvanized her district to action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know Trump and many others support red flag laws. I don't.
The constitution is clear on the second amendment, it's the second most important freedom against a tyrannical government - if the first fails, use the second, a red flag law would make it legal for them to confiscate your guns based on 'threatening speech' against the government, after all, you must be crazy to stand up against (any/big) government.
And it's not theoretical, red flag laws are already been used to basically confiscate guns from anyo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Constitution is clear that you get to own firearms as part of a well-regulated militia. Our well-regulated militia these days are the state National Guard. So unless you are a member, you don't have any right to own a fire arm as the Constitution states.
Personally, I'm a strict constitutionalist in this matter. You get to join the National Guard and you get to own one (1) muzzle-loading musket or pistol. You are only allowed to fire those weapons while under the watchful eye of your National Guard Instr
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution is clear that you get to own firearms as part of a well-regulated militia. Our well-regulated militia these days are the state National Guard. So unless you are a member, you don't have any right to own a fire arm as the Constitution states.
Personally, I'm a strict constitutionalist in this matter. You get to join the National Guard and you get to own one (1) muzzle-loading musket or pistol. You are only allowed to fire those weapons while under the watchful eye of your National Guard Instructor.
And free speech is limited to the methods available in the 18th century, right?
Re: (Score:2)
This post should be taken outside and shot.
Re: (Score:2)
I find your method of argument insightful. When will you graduate from High School?
Re: Duh! Google is not the government (Score:2)
Well, Google was founded with government money (In-Q-Tel), engages in openly monopolistic business practices without incurring any government sanction, and generates the majority of their revenue from selling surveillance data to the government. So yeah, I'd say they are a state company.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize you are defending the "rights" of evil megacorps to trample on democracy...
lolwut?