"It is the government and the government only that cannot infringe on 1A rights. "
That's wrong. And, again, it is wrong for the same reasons that the structural arguments are wrong... because of a deliberately adopted ignorance about the boundary issues.
I'm not trying to re-write the Constitution, saying it is designed to impose limits on others action just as it does on government... but the Constitution is also not a source that creates rights... it only acknowledges that they exist. It also doesn't intend that limits that are acknowledged as part of imposing prior restraint of potential government excess... defines abuses of which only governments are capable. Otherwise, just wrong to claim the Constitution limits only government, and not others. Slavery, another private property issue, the obvious bit... should obviate any need to explain further ?
The right to free speech... doesn't arise from the Constitution... which imposes a limit on government. But, the Constitution limits government without granting any license for others to proceed in violating others rights where government may not. And, again... the fact of business being authorized to conduct commerce in the commons... by license... binds the conduct of business to the limits that apply to government, implicit in the agreement made through government to access the commons for commercial purposes... through the license. In essence, when you conduct business... you do so on government property, by license... which means the limits that apply to government also apply to you... as government has no power to enable others outside of the limits that apply to itself. You don't have to license your business to engage in commerce... although navigating the law becomes a lot trickier... to the point of impracticality. But, hey, that takes us full circle back to the reasons that anyone incorporates... another act of submission to the government, that also enables your action under license... binding you to limits... and where once again we see the liability issues arise, with the grant of an exemption... AFTER the submission to the limits that apply to government. If you act under or within their agency... their limits apply to you.
That companies also have first amendment rights... is no license to violate others rights... or pretend that limits on violating others rights don't apply to you.
That there is no license granted to violate or ignore others free speech rights... has nothing to do with property ownership. Speech does not exist "on property"... but is intrinsically virtual in its occupancy of the ether and the "mindshare" of the commons... independent of the carrier. If I trespass on your yard... and say something you don't like... you have every right to redress my trespass... not my speech... which is still not claiming the right is absolute.
The boundary issue there... might have the distinction appear irrelevant... in that the consequences appear to be the same ? I'm not arguing that SI, or any others, have no right to limit others "presence" on a property... real or virtual. But the distinction is essential... and that as one of the subjects of dispute in the Parler case... where the issue is not that Parler trespassed and was expelled from private property... but that Parler was wrongly expelled from private property they had paid to occupy... and then the property owners chased Parler off the property, and across the commons, and beat them to death... because they disagreed with the content of Parler's speech. That's about speech... not property.
Property owners have rights, which apply to physical reality and to the virtual in the ways the law defines... without it enabling any grant of sovereignty to property owners that obviates limits the Constitution imposes on the government.
The Constitution also doesn't intend, by limiting government, that others have no parallel obligations to respect others rights...
The issue of private property is thus a canard... as the commons exist... and cannot be wished away by simply ignoring them... to declare anything in the commons as private property as long as some private actor wishes to stake the claim... while feigning ignorance about their obligations under the law.
"Telcos are regulated utilities. That's an irrelevant comparison."
LOL!! Too obvious... and two obvious... things.
First, the telcos are regulated... as every business is... only with variation in what the regulation imposes. Not irrelevant to consider why the telcos are regulated as they are... which goes to the heart of Congressional intent in the purpose of regulation... that including section 230 as a "part of the puzzle" that exists in regulation as a layer assuming the regulation of telcos exists as it does. My prior post addressed the wifi router as another instance... not a regulated utility... but regulated for purpose with a design. The design has to be consistent... from one instance to the other... for the intent to make sense, and work. Why would they require utilities be regulated to create an unfettered flow... and wifi routers work without imposing fetters... and then intend to enable "platforms" in crafting fetters to enable censoring others as they wish... while the boundary of what a "platform" is enlarged, at will, to encompass anything they want ? Section 230 does not exist in a vacuum... either in standing independently above the limits imposed in the language above that clause in the enabling legislation... or independently of the design of making it fit, and work, with others, to the same end... within the larger puzzle of others regulatory parts... not functioning to defeat them.
"We're not a utility"... therefore we can ignore the laws as written, and the context in which they are written, including how the regulatory puzzle fits together... to justify our intent in violating others rights ? No.
Second, the telcos are regulated... for common purpose... not to transfer the ability to subvert that purpose to others. In the degree fools in the industry continue to pretend "we're not telcos, so we can ignore reality"... that invitation to require increasing regulatory burdens will be quickly met.
The Constitution does give you the right to be stupid... which does not make being stupid an advantage. |
