The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge
social media companies on free speech grounds.
While the case has nothing to do with social media on its surface, it could have broader
implications for companies like Google, or Facebook, and Twitter.
RT correspondent, Brigida Santos, joins me now with the details.
Brigida, first, tell me about the issues at the heart of this case.
What are we taking a look at that might have a vast effect on social media?
On the surface, this case looks like a dispute between a local cable station known as the
Manhattan Neighborhood Network, and two videographers whose critical segment about the network was
banned from its airwaves, along with any of their future work.
However, the case is actually much more important than it appears because the videographers
are arguing that the network is a public entity rather than a private company.
Now they say that because it works with the local government to reach viewers, it has
to follow the rules of the first amendment's state actor clause, which bans true public
entities from censoring citizens speech.
Now MNN is fighting the claims, and accusing the videographers of twisting the facts.
They maintain that they are a private company, which does give them the right to exercise
editorial control over the content that they air.
So this is really about whether the operator of a public access cable network will be considered
in the eyes of the law to be a state actor that is subject to constitutional liability.
And they're also going to look at whether the courts aired in their previous rulings
on this matter.
Well, what were those previous rulings?
I mean if I look at this case objectively, the thing I come up with ... First of all,
not Google, or none of these social medias operate without the infrastructure that was
built by taxpayers.
I don't know why everybody misses that.
Yes, they took the infrastructure that was initially built, they added to it, they modified
it, but the initial structure was paid for by taxpayers, by everybody watching this program
paid for it.
So there's at least a quasi-government relationship here, and I wonder what the previous rulings
have been in that regard.
So this is where things get really interesting.
Now the videographers had previously lost in a district court where the judge ruled
that MNN was not a state actor because only two of its 13 board members were appointed
by the state of New York, rather than a majority as outlined by precedent.
But, two out of three panel members at the second circuit court of appeals later disagreed,
stating that when a local government contracts to use private property for public expressive
activity, it does create a public forum, and it does function as a state actor.
So we're going to see how this is going to play out, but these are two different opinions
here.
So a broad ruling from the Supreme Court could potentially open technology companies like
Google, Facebook, and Twitter, to their first amendment lawsuits, which I really do believe
were way overdue for.
I mean we see right now, you've got social media that's making decisions about even who
they're going to put up.
They're making decisions of what's acceptable speech, and what's not acceptable speech.
It flies in the face of the first amendment.
And I'll tell you this, once this ruling comes out, if it is one that I see provides the
vehicle, I will go after these companies myself because I think what they're doing is extremely
dangerous.
I saw an article this week where a Christian broadcast was taken off of the air.
Somebody made the decision to take them off of the air because they were talking about
an abortion issue that they disagreed with.
I mean where does that stop.
So the first amendment test have got to take place, but we got to get some rulings first.
I wonder, do you think it's likely that the court is going to issue a ruling that restricts
social media, and what they're able to put forward as far as making decisions in-house.
This is acceptable, this is not acceptable.
What do you think the courts going to do with that.
Look, that's definitely a concern, and in a petition on behalf of the network, the company's
lawyers wrote that the second circuits implications are incredibly dangerous because the decision
will apply to areas outside the public access televisions here.
And that they will reshape all state action litigation moving forward, but we have this
question right now of when is corporate censorship government censorship?
And that's ultimately what this is really looking at.
Brigida, thanks for joining me.
Let's cover this story more going forward.
I think we might be able to get a break to where we can actually go after some of these
social media companies, and I think it's long overdue.
For more infomation >> Dance Moms: Thalia's Solo "Letting Go" (Season 5) | Lifetime - Duration: 2:48. 
For more infomation >> American Pickers: Mike Pries Pieces Of History From A Blacksmith Workshop (S18, E5) | History - Duration: 4:53. 
For more infomation >> Shooting At Florida Yoga Studio Leaves 2 Dead | TODAY - Duration: 2:12. 
For more infomation >> Obama Takes Aim At Republicans On Midterms Campaign Trail | TODAY - Duration: 2:55. 
For more infomation >> Sheinelle And Dylan Tee Up For A Day Of Golf And Dance | TODAY - Duration: 5:16. 
For more infomation >> Trump Acknowledges Democrats Could Win The House | TODAY - Duration: 2:18. 
For more infomation >> The Lost Kitchen's Erin French Shares 3 Of Her Recipes | TODAY - Duration: 3:56. 
For more infomation >> Uomini e Donne, Giorgio Manetti e la 'dichiarazione d'amore' a Maria De Filippi: 'Voglio che…' - Duration: 3:37. 
For more infomation >> Mi voleva con lui anche se stava con Carlotta': Rita Dalla Chiesa choc su Fabrizio Frizzi - Duration: 3:10. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét