Is political speech regulation of Social Media by the Federal Government Constitutional?

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:51 -0400

Would it be contrary to the First Amendment for the Federal Government to regulate political speech on Social Media platforms?

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2020 9:46 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 May 2020 09:46:37 -0400

Possibly, but only a court could decide. A private entity is bound by the law, but has the right to establish Terms of Service for members. It's up to them to enforce or not until a conflict requires adjudication. Free speech is a basic right if within limits of the law.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made May 27 at 2020 9:55 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Wed, 27 May 2020 09:55:02 -0400

Regulation of political speech by the Government is unconstitutional, period. Does not matter if it happens on social media, the street corner, or anywhere else.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made May 27 at 2020 10:22 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Wed, 27 May 2020 10:22:56 -0400

In this case, Twitter did not "regulate" Trump's post. They simply indicated readers should check the facts because Trump as lying.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2020 10:41 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 May 2020 10:41:25 -0400

In a word, no.
Speech should not be edited or "fact checked", it should be combatted with more speech.
What the social media platforms have to worry about is how they might be regulated. In simple terms, they are currently dubbed "platforms", a kind of bulletin board where the owner of the board is not responsible for the content. Once they start editing posts or "deplatforming" folks, they start to resemble a publisher - an entity that is responsible for it's content. If they get defined as the latter, they can expect the possibility of litigation or fines for violations of libel laws.

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made May 27 at 2020 11:00 AM

MSgt Michael Bischoff — Wed, 27 May 2020 11:00:54 -0400

What speech was restricted ? They just commented on his tweet just like he calls others fake news.

Response by LCDR Joshua Gillespie made May 27 at 2020 12:20 PM

LCDR Joshua Gillespie — Wed, 27 May 2020 12:20:33 -0400

I guess the lawyers will have the final say... but here's some "common sense". No, we shouldn't "regulate" social media. That being said, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. In my opinion, there's as much potential for "censorship" in "curating facts" as there is hiding them. People need to develop a critical eye and ear, stop looking for "quick" and "easy" answers, understand that we're often our own best advisers... and learn to weigh things on the merit of multiple sources.

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 27 at 2020 5:39 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 27 May 2020 17:39:09 -0400

Twitter, as a platform, enjoys protection from lawsuits and consequences for the content on their site. By doing this, they have made themselves a publisher, and now will have their 302 protection stripped from them.

They just shot themselves in the foot.