Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcranmer | Hacker News Reader

Such regulations are flagrantly violating First Amendment rights of freedom of association and freedom from compelled speech.

View on HN

The white elephant in the room here is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If that was to be repealed things like the possibility of being liable for defamation on the site would level the playing field.

The way it currently is, there is not a check and balance in the system and it has allowed one side to gain a lot more power which is a bad thing. While those on that side feel they are on the "right" side, that power imbalance has corrupted that side like any form of absolute power tends to do.

> If that was to be repealed things like the possibility of being liable for defamation on the site would level the playing field.

Giving the platforms still more reasons to ban people they deem liabilities? Not sure what your argument is.

Is it unconstitutional for the government to tell tobacco companies they can't advertise to children?

There are laws that the phone company can't discriminate who can use their service. Is that unconstitutional too?

People have had very broad interpretations for what constitutes corporate first amendment protections recently.

I agree that they are unconstitutional, but public accommodation laws are theoretically unconstitutional in the same way, by the same amendment, and provide precedent. So their flagrancy is no guarantee that they will be overruled.

Here's a current Supreme Court justice making that argument:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_32...

“Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation. Although definitions between jurisdictions vary, a company ordinarily is a place of public accommodation if it provides ‘lodging, food, entertainment, or other services to the public … in general ... Twitter and other digital platforms bear resemblance to that definition.” -- Clarence Thomas

And Clarence Thomas also believes that the doctrine of incorporation is incorrect, so the Bill of Rights doesn't actually encumber state or local governments in any way. The other 8 justices on the Supreme Court and pretty much the rest of the legal profession disagrees. Note that no other justice signed onto Thomas's opinion here.

Even if you were to agree with his opinion in full, you'd still find these state laws to be in violation, since they would be preempted by §230 in federal law, and the Constitution affirms that federal law supersedes state law wherever the two conflict.

Depends if you see organizations as persons with rights or not. I'd hardly say that anyone's rights were trampled on if an "association" with almost 3 billion people sharing content like Facebook is regulated a bit.

as far as I know these regulations have not been legally contested

Reply on news.ycombinator.com