 |
| Tulsi Gabbard |
“There’s just been news recently about Facebook banning certain individuals . . . because of their speech. They disagree with the speech they’re using or the ideas they’re pushing forward. Unchecked, First Amendment rights going out the window,” she said
“The argument is [the First Amendment] doesn’t apply because they’re a private company, right?” Rogan responded.
“Yes, but they re trying to get the best of both worlds. The fact that they are claiming to say, ‘Hey, this is a free space for open communication for everyone’ while at the same time saying ‘You know, what Joe, I don’t like what you’re saying about this, so we’re going to ban you and whoever your friends are from this conversation’ — I think that’s a big problem.”
Gabbard’s description of Facebook’s desire to have “the best of both worlds” refers to the company’s claim that it is a neutral platform, rather than a publisher, and as such cannot be held liable for the content it disseminates.
I am in line with Gabbard's sentiments here that it is horrific that these social media platforms are banning some individuals, BUT they are indeed private sector firms and they should be left alone.
That said, this is another example of the very shrewd campaign that Gabbard is building. She is building multiple alliances with groups that are not going to abandon her while the rest of the Democratic pack issues statements on politically correct nonsense that don't distinguish them from any of the others in the pack. Their supporters could shift, Gabbard's are not going to shift from her.
-RW
Technically they are Private Sector companies. But they have become the defacto "Public Square" in the modern era and should be subject to the First Amendment. In any case, I still don't understand why it is ok for the government to tell a Christian baker (also a private firm) that they must accept all customers, but they can't tell Facebook that they must accept all viewpoints (unless illegal). Can someone explain?
ReplyDeleteWhen the power company decides to shut off your electricity because you've been labeled a 'nazi' by transgender communists, you're always free to build your own power plant. Obviously the free market wants censorship because otherwise private entrepreneurs would have built their own internet in search of profit.
DeleteThese kinds of stupid arguments are why no one takes libertarians seriously.
The reason there is only one power company is because of a government enforced monopoly and has nothing to do with libertarianism. The reason there is only one "internet" is also due to government cartelization and monopolization, specifically of the internet exchanges that were passed out in America due to cronyism under the old FCC arrangements. How do you think it came to be that there is a tiered system of internet service providers, so that lower tiers have to pay to transit along the backbone of higher tier providers? Perhaps you should research why there is only one Internet before you make it a point in your comment.
DeleteIf the power company shuts off my power, I have a generator that runs on natural gas. Of course, the natty gas line is not a free market either and they could shut that off too. Does that mean libertarianism shouldn't be taken seriously? No, it means the State is evil and stupid.
If Facebook bans me, I can go on Gab. The government could force Gab to shut me down too, or risk being seized. Again, does that mean libertarianism should not be taken seriously? No, it means the State is evil and stupid.
People don't take libertarianism seriously because they assume they know everything but never actually research why things are the way they are.
David
RW, is your principle that the larger and more successful a private company becomes, the more likely that it should be regulated? Assuming that a company gets large through providing significant value to customers, the last thing that we should want is for the state to get involved.
DeleteIn any event, the libertarian response to inconsistent treatment by the state is not to advocate for it to act against all, but to advocate that it not act against anyone.