A private company probably shouldn’t be allowed to interpret the constitution to this degree. I wonder if someone will sue and SCOTUS will rule.
The first ammendment does not apply to private companies at all -- well, it applies in that it gives them free speach rights themselves, so if you mean by "shouldn't be allowed to interpret" that they shouldn't be legally able to express this opinion, well, that'd be a first ammendment problem.
But it doesn't restrict private company's behavior at all. Private companies are not required by the first ammendment to give anyone free speech at all. Which is a kind of weird thing in this statement, they are speaking as if the first ammendment somehow requires them to do this, or as if private companies should be prevented from limiting speech (in general, that would in fact be the first ammendment problem, to compel the private company to provide a platform! although there are ways around that). But as legally weird or incorrect as I think their reasoning or interpretation of the constitution, I don't know why we would think they wouldn't be "allowed" to express a wrong opinion.
Under what grounds do you think someone would have a claim to sue them? Why do you think it would make it to the supreme court? I think you may not have an educated legal basis for that opinion, but you're still allowed to have it and express it!
What portion of their statement are you referring to? I didn't notice anything in this post suggesting that they're required to support free speech, only that they agree with the underlying principles which inspired that provision in the constitution.
> It is not our place, nor should it be the place of any technology company, to interfere with Americans’ civil rights and sit in judgment over their lawful expression.
To me suggesting a private company "interferes with Americans civil rights" by deciding what content to publish, suggests that private companies have some kind of first ammendment obligation.
But I'm not really interested in arguing about it.
Yes. private companies have the obligation to protect their first amendment rights, as part of their obligation to their investors/owners to maximize profit.
Claiming that private companies has some sort of obligation to you by allowing you a platform for your speech without interference or moderation assumes that such private entities have no first amendment rights.
That's obviously false.
If private entities (which you and I and most everyone else) are required to host the speech of others whether they agree with such speech or not, then I can use the same argument for me being able to come over to your house and play gay, furry, midget, scheiser porn on all your screens, project it on the exterior of your house and you have to allow it. If you don't, you're infringing on my first amendment rights.
Which is, of course ridiculous on its face. Whether it's a screen in your home or a server in one of Facebook's data centers, the principle is the same.
Congress trying to figure out what is happening within the country is fine too. It’s a lot of people and businesses and they don’t know.