Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Like when is this a problem, given that I don't even have a job censoring websites?  Give me an example where I will have no idea how to evaluate a video for appropriate content. 

 It's an issue, nan, when you instinctively cry "Censorship!" over actions that MSM or websites take to abide by libel laws and the principles behind them, which are beyond your current understanding.

I asked for an example, not a personal attack. 

To be fair, it sounds like common sense.  If I don't know about an area of law, I'm not going to criticize someone who says that she's limited by the law in what she can do.  I'd check to see if there was some expert analysis I could read up on.

nan said:

My position is theoretical and does not require an understanding of libel laws.  

nan said:

I'm against people using them as an excuse when they don't apply.  

 Oh, come on.

nan said:

I asked for an example, not a personal attack. 

 You misidentified the “problem” and asked for an irrelevant example. I tried to clarify the issue. C’est la vie.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:
I asked for an example, not a personal attack. 

 You misidentified the “problem” and asked for an irrelevant example. I tried to clarify the issue. C’est la vie.

No, I asked for a real example.  You gave me an irrelevant one in the form of a personal attack.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter.  That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?

Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)

Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech

 Alright, instead of a store suppose I run a small website with a discussion area.  I rely on advertisers to pay the expenses.  If the guy with antisemitic flyers that he hands out in South Orange now keeps posting their contents, at what point can that be limited by me?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter.  That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?

Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)

Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech

 Alright, instead of a store suppose I run a small website with a discussion area.  I rely on advertisers to pay the expenses.  If the guy with antisemitic flyers that he hands out in South Orange now keeps posting their contents, at what point can that be limited by me?

 Same answer.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter.  That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?

Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)

Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech

 Alright, instead of a store suppose I run a small website with a discussion area.  I rely on advertisers to pay the expenses.  If the guy with antisemitic flyers that he hands out in South Orange now keeps posting their contents, at what point can that be limited by me?

 Same answer.

So what's the answer?  Would you say that business is "considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information"?  What if it's a local Facebook group, with lots of members like the SOMA Lounge?  Can you say where the line is, or are you not saying?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
If I have a store in South Orange, and allow people to leave flyers on the counter, and someone comes in with a flyer advertising an antisemitic event, I'm allowed to say that it's not allowed on my counter.  That person is free to hand out flyers all he wants, but not to have me help him distribute them.
Am I guilty of censorship?

Of course. A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)

Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech

 Alright, instead of a store suppose I run a small website with a discussion area.  I rely on advertisers to pay the expenses.  If the guy with antisemitic flyers that he hands out in South Orange now keeps posting their contents, at what point can that be limited by me?

 Same answer.

So what's the answer?  Would you say that business is "considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information"?  What if it's a local Facebook group, with lots of members like the SOMA Lounge?  Can you say where the line is, or are you not saying?
 

Are you talking about MOL?

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)

Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech

 Alright, instead of a store suppose I run a small website with a discussion area.  I rely on advertisers to pay the expenses.  If the guy with antisemitic flyers that he hands out in South Orange now keeps posting their contents, at what point can that be limited by me?

 Same answer.

So what's the answer?  Would you say that business is "considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information"?  What if it's a local Facebook group, with lots of members like the SOMA Lounge?  Can you say where the line is, or are you not saying?
 

Are you talking about MOL?

I wasn't being that specific. But if it helps you respond to the questions in my prior post, you can assume that if you want.  

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
A proprietor has the right to allow or censor any forms of speech on his/her property, with the exception of speech by employees related to their working conditions (for businesses larger than minimum sizes.)

Censorship by a business is not controversial unless the business is considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information. Facebook is an example of the former:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebook-shouldnt-censor-offensive-speech

 Alright, instead of a store suppose I run a small website with a discussion area.  I rely on advertisers to pay the expenses.  If the guy with antisemitic flyers that he hands out in South Orange now keeps posting their contents, at what point can that be limited by me?

 Same answer.

So what's the answer?  Would you say that business is "considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information"?  What if it's a local Facebook group, with lots of members like the SOMA Lounge?  Can you say where the line is, or are you not saying?
 

Are you talking about MOL?

I wasn't being that specific. But if it helps you respond to the questions in my prior post, you can assume that if you want.  
 

The owners of both MOL and local Facebook groups have the right to censor the views on their pages. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

So what's the answer?  Would you say that business is "considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information"?  What if it's a local Facebook group, with lots of members like the SOMA Lounge?  Can you say where the line is, or are you not saying?
 

Are you talking about MOL?

I wasn't being that specific. But if it helps you respond to the questions in my prior post, you can assume that if you want.   

The owners of both MOL and local Facebook groups have the right to censor the views on their pages. 

So your answer is that they're not "considered part of the public square or purport to be a non-biased provider of information".  Where is the line that gets Facebook in trouble?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

So what's the answer?  Would you say that business is "considered part of the public square or purports to be a non-biased provider of information"?  What if it's a local Facebook group, with lots of members like the SOMA Lounge?  Can you say where the line is, or are you not saying?
 

Are you talking about MOL?

I wasn't being that specific. But if it helps you respond to the questions in my prior post, you can assume that if you want.   

The owners of both MOL and local Facebook groups have the right to censor the views on their pages. 

So your answer is that they're not "considered part of the public square or purport to be a non-biased provider of information".  Where is the line that gets Facebook in trouble?
 

The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech. The ACLU article cited above also holds Facebook to First Amendment standards, accepting censorship of unlawful speech (e.g., incitement to violence), but not censorship of speech that is "offensive" or unpopular.

Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.

paulsurovell said:

The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech. The ACLU article cited above also holds Facebook to First Amendment standards, accepting censorship of unlawful speech (e.g., incitement to violence), but not censorship of speech that is "offensive" or unpopular.

Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.

 Is it a first amendment violation to restrict Facebook access to people 13 years and older?

My mom doesn’t have a computer or internet access or an email address. Is Facebook censoring her by restricting her access?

paulsurovell said:

Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.

 I think I "elicited" an actual clear statement from you.  It's a blurry line.  That's something to think about in comments about Facebook and YouTube.

ridski said:
My mom doesn’t have a computer or internet access or an email address. Is Facebook censoring her by restricting her access?

She can go to Hyde Park.

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech. The ACLU article cited above also holds Facebook to First Amendment standards, accepting censorship of unlawful speech (e.g., incitement to violence), but not censorship of speech that is "offensive" or unpopular.

Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.

 Is it a first amendment violation to restrict Facebook access to people 13 years and older?

 Not sure. What do you think?

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech. The ACLU article cited above also holds Facebook to First Amendment standards, accepting censorship of unlawful speech (e.g., incitement to violence), but not censorship of speech that is "offensive" or unpopular.

Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.

 Is it a first amendment violation to restrict Facebook access to people 13 years and older?

 Not sure. What do you think?

 I ran that response through Eliza and she said “We were discussing you, not me.”

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:
My mom doesn’t have a computer or internet access or an email address. Is Facebook censoring her by restricting her access?

She can go to Hyde Park.

 So can Julian Assange. Matter of fact, he’s much closer, it’s only a mile walk to speakers corner for him.

paulsurovell said:

The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech.

 Packingham isn’t so sweeping. The problem with the state law was that it indiscriminately barred access to all social media. Kennedy’s opinion left open the possibility that a more narrowly tailored ban could be constitutional, and Alito’s concurrence — joined by Roberts and Thomas, with Gorsuch not participating and Kavanaugh now replacing Kennedy — faulted the majority decision for “musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.”

And then, of course, there’s the matter of what lawful speech that Facebook itself, rather than the government, decides to restrict. 

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech.

 Packingham isn’t so sweeping. The problem with the state law was that it indiscriminately barred access to all social media. Kennedy’s opinion left open the possibility that a more narrowly tailored ban could be constitutional, and Alito’s concurrence — joined by Roberts and Thomas, with Gorsuch not participating and Kavanaugh now replacing Kennedy — faulted the majority decision for “musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.”
And then, of course, there’s the matter of what lawful speech that Facebook itself, rather than the government, decides to restrict. 

In my humble opinion, Packingham isn't useful for the question of how open Facebook, YouTube, or any other website should be to any content.  The case was about whether the government could, as a general principle, bar someone from accessing such sites.  The majority opinion stated: "In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."

In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites.  I don't think the decision informs us on the question of what the websites themselves are required to do, under the First Amendment or otherwise, to provide access to anyone in particular.

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:

ridski said:

paulsurovell said:
The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech. The ACLU article cited above also holds Facebook to First Amendment standards, accepting censorship of unlawful speech (e.g., incitement to violence), but not censorship of speech that is "offensive" or unpopular.

Whether speech is unlawful is not usually a black-and-white matter, so "the line" that you are trying to elicit is often quite blurry.

 Is it a first amendment violation to restrict Facebook access to people 13 years and older?

 Not sure. What do you think?

 I ran that response through Eliza and she said “We were discussing you, not me.”

 Eliza tells you when to talk?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

The Supreme Court's Packingham decision held that denying access to Facebook, which it called part of the public square, violates the First Amendment, but it didn't say that Facebook couldn't censor unlawful speech.

 Packingham isn’t so sweeping. The problem with the state law was that it indiscriminately barred access to all social media. Kennedy’s opinion left open the possibility that a more narrowly tailored ban could be constitutional, and Alito’s concurrence — joined by Roberts and Thomas, with Gorsuch not participating and Kavanaugh now replacing Kennedy — faulted the majority decision for “musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.”
And then, of course, there’s the matter of what lawful speech that Facebook itself, rather than the government, decides to restrict. 

Another key aspect is that Packingham was about a government denying access to Facebook, which is why the First Amendment was invoked. Nothing in the decision about Facebook itself denying access.

However, the decision defined social media as being part of the public square and thus being a venue where First Amendment rights are exercised. So an overlap between private property and the public square was articulated, similar to private malls, but nothing yet to limit private ownership's control over the venue. One First Amendment lawsuit successfully challenged restrictions on Facebook, but that was in the case of a government Facebook page.

paulsurovell said:

Another key aspect is that Packingham was about a government denying access to Facebook, which is why the First Amendment was invoked. Nothing in the decision about Facebook itself denying access.

 That’s what I meant in my second paragraph.

However, the decision defined social media as being part of the public square and thus being a venue where First Amendment rights are exercised. So an overlap between private property and the public square was articulated, similar to private malls, but nothing yet to limit private ownership's control over the venue. One First Amendment lawsuit successfully challenged restrictions on Facebook, but that was in the case of a government Facebook page.

 It was articulated, but within limits. And I was trying to suggest how different those limits might be under the current court.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Another key aspect is that Packingham was about a government denying access to Facebook, which is why the First Amendment was invoked. Nothing in the decision about Facebook itself denying access.

 That’s what I meant in my second paragraph.

However, the decision defined social media as being part of the public square and thus being a venue where First Amendment rights are exercised. So an overlap between private property and the public square was articulated, similar to private malls, but nothing yet to limit private ownership's control over the venue. One First Amendment lawsuit successfully challenged restrictions on Facebook, but that was in the case of a government Facebook page.

 It was articulated, but within limits. And I was trying to suggest how different those limits might be under the current court.

 And that's what I meant in my conclusion about Mr. Surovell's post.  "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites.  I don't think the decision informs us on the question of what the websites themselves are required to do, under the First Amendment or otherwise, to provide access to anyone in particular."  We wouldn't be discussing the Packingham decision if Mr. Surovell hadn't brought it up.  I guess now we all agree that it doesn't apply to the issue of what Facebook and YouTube can do about allowing or removing content.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Another key aspect is that Packingham was about a government denying access to Facebook, which is why the First Amendment was invoked. Nothing in the decision about Facebook itself denying access.

 That’s what I meant in my second paragraph.

However, the decision defined social media as being part of the public square and thus being a venue where First Amendment rights are exercised. So an overlap between private property and the public square was articulated, similar to private malls, but nothing yet to limit private ownership's control over the venue. One First Amendment lawsuit successfully challenged restrictions on Facebook, but that was in the case of a government Facebook page.

 It was articulated, but within limits. And I was trying to suggest how different those limits might be under the current court.

 Right. I found your post in agreement with mine and vice versa.

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Another key aspect is that Packingham was about a government denying access to Facebook, which is why the First Amendment was invoked. Nothing in the decision about Facebook itself denying access.

 That’s what I meant in my second paragraph.

However, the decision defined social media as being part of the public square and thus being a venue where First Amendment rights are exercised. So an overlap between private property and the public square was articulated, similar to private malls, but nothing yet to limit private ownership's control over the venue. One First Amendment lawsuit successfully challenged restrictions on Facebook, but that was in the case of a government Facebook page.

 It was articulated, but within limits. And I was trying to suggest how different those limits might be under the current court.

 And that's what I meant in my conclusion about Mr. Surovell's post.  "In other words, the holding in the case is that the government, under the First Amendment, can't prohibit someone from participating on those websites.  I don't think the decision informs us on the question of what the websites themselves are required to do, under the First Amendment or otherwise, to provide access to anyone in particular."  We wouldn't be discussing the Packingham decision if Mr. Surovell hadn't brought it up.  I guess now we all agree that it doesn't apply to the issue of what Facebook and YouTube can do about allowing or removing content.
 

Packingham defined social media as part of the public square. That language has already been cited ina lawsuit successfully challenging the Facebook page of the Governor of Maryland, and will undoubtedly be cited in any future lawsuits against Facebook itself.

It's silly to downplay the importance of Packingham.

It started with Alex Jones, but as some of us have predicted it's spreading.  Facebook just removed 800 pages of political posts just before the midterm:

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1050534164397731840

Good.

Here is a partial list of the pages deleted (185 out of 800).  Facebook refused to release the whole list.

https://www.westernjournal.com/facebook-purge-list-pages-deleted/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=MobileFloatingSharingButtons&utm_content=2018-10-13&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons