Facebook and the First Amendment - A Discussion

2021-11-12T17:06:49-05:00

You've undoubtedly seen the headlines that bring back middle school social studies lessons. The Facebook Papers? While the Federalist Papers (https://rly.pt/FederalistPapers) helped establish the United States as a country independent from outside rule, the Facebook Papers (https://rly.pt/FacebookPapers) shed light on how far we’ve come from our Founding Fathers’ fight. Hundreds of pages written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison ultimately convinced the masses that ratifying the US Constitution (https://rly.pt/Constitution) was the only way to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Facebook Papers address how the media monolith promotes injustice, disrupts tranquility, enables offense, and detracts from the general welfare of our great nation. Thousands upon thousands of internal documents seem to suggest that Facebook is responsible for a great deal of harm.

Exactly what kind of harm are we talking about? Here are four key issues being raised from the digestion of the Facebook Papers by 17 news organizations:

1. Promoting Injustice: https://rly.pt/30lSxE8
“Stop the Steal,” QAnon and Three Percenters, to name a few, have a platform in which to organize and spread messages of hate and misinformation. Facebook, according to the papers, knew about the January 6th insurrection on the Capitol as it was happening but did nothing to stop the attack on our government.

2. Disrupting Tranquility: https://rly.pt/3Dh2EZG
Civil War is pretty much the antithesis to tranquility and yet Facebook is playing a major role in the violence erupting in Africa, namely Ethiopia. Citing the platform’s inability to support local languages, the Papers address increasing violence in developing countries that goes hand-in-hand with increased use of social media.

3. Enabling Offense: https://rly.pt/3qCgimD
Defending VIPs and giving almost six million users the ability to sidestep content sanctions, Facebook misled its oversight board which ultimately allowed troves of offensive content to be disseminated across it’s platform.

4. Detracting from the General Welfare: https://rly.pt/3c9hGEM
Over half of online recruitment in active sex trafficking cases last year occurred on Facebook. This information isn’t new. Apple threatened to pull Facebook’s products from it’s app store in 2018 due to human trafficking concerns.

The Facebook Papers bring some ugly truths to the forefront with regard to human behavior. I’m not interested in your thoughts on the Facebook Papers, but rather how 21st century technology factors into the laws and ideals that serve as the backbone of our great nation. The Federalists succeeded in their efforts to establish a government like none seen before it in history. However, opposition was fierce and thus was born the Bill of Rights. The compromise allowed anti-Federalists to limit the power of the government. The very first Amendment protects the right to free speech. https://rly.pt/FreedomOfSpeech

Hamilton and Madison did not have the internet in mind when defending the constitution or amending the document. We no longer live in a world where one’s voice is only heard by those within shouting distance. Your right to free speech ends when it infringes upon another’s basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Should the government hold Facebook accountable for harmful speech disseminated on its platform? If the technology grew faster than Facebook’s ability to control it, should it be shut down until effective safety measures are put in place? I encourage you to share your thoughts by respecting your right to free speech and using it kindly, thoughtfully and responsibly.

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Full Text of The...

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name

Response by SPC John Bryant made Nov 12 at 2021 5:12 PM

2021-11-12T17:12:22-05:00

The Constitution was written to protect citizens as stated in the Amendment you always corporations to change the rights then their breaking the Constitutional laws were does it end. Facebook was the right to censorship the voice of anyone then we have the right to sue them for the same reason

Response by PFC David Foster made Nov 12 at 2021 5:38 PM

2021-11-12T17:38:55-05:00

It's a very interesting read. I think a lot of people, myself included, don't understand exactly what our rights are, especially when it comes to being detained and searched. I've seed dozens of videos of people recording being what seems to be being detained illegally. Most of them end with the person being taken away in handcuffs. So, I am still confused if I am required to present an ID if I have not given an officer a reasonable cause to believe I have committed a crime. Actually, I think these falls under the 2nd amendment.
Okay, back to the 1st amendment. Apparently, we can say whatever we want unless we try to say it through a private company, then they have the right to block people from saying things that they don't like or believe to be misleading or untrue.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2021 6:07 PM

2021-11-12T18:07:08-05:00

This has always been one of my pet peeves, people claiming violation of First Amendment Rights whenever they don't get to be heard as they want to. The First Amendment isn't freedom to be a jerk, freedom from someone shutting you down on open mic night, or freedom to abuse someone else's social media platform as you like. The First Amendment is freedom from government interaction in your opinions. This is the actual amendment, for people who've never actually read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

In a nutshell, Congress and cops can't stop you from talking. Unlike some other countries, a person can't go to jail even if they are spitting out hate speech, praying to Hitler as their protector. It's not like that in some countries like France where you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing about a race, or China where you can go to jail for criticizing a public official.

I dislike FB as much as anyone else, but it's still a publicly traded corporation. If you went to a public social place like a community pool, or a privately owned place like a golf course, and started breaking their rules - especially after agreeing to their rules when you joined - that's not an infringement on your rights.

If you come toy house to play on my property and break my rules, I have the right to kick you off. FB is hosted on servers that belong to FB, using code made by FB, to present a profile made by FB. None of this is news when you sign up.

So, when someone says it violates their First Amendment rights when FB invites them in, offers them a seat at the table with their own cubby and says "these are the rules if you want to play" and then that person violates the rules - I say that person hasn't actually read the First Amendment.

So, to be clear, the First Amendment is not for protecting you when you're banished by a business for speaking your mind, that is capitalism, and that's what makes our country great. The First Amendment is what allows you to complain about it without the FBI showing up at your door and confiscating your computer

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2021 6:22 PM

2021-11-12T18:22:19-05:00

You should read any "terms for Service" prior to accepting... you may be signing away what "you think" is your 1st Amendment right.

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Nov 12 at 2021 6:45 PM

2021-11-12T18:45:04-05:00

@ Ryan Callahan: I happen to be a Facebook: coach/author/and, administrator.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2021 7:28 PM

2021-11-12T19:28:46-05:00

I think everyone knows Facebook is a cesspool (along with basically all social media) - but it's a private corporation. They can have whatever rules they want to have as long as they aren't violating protected classes.

If people don't like what they do then stop using it. If the majority of my family and friends weren't on there, I wouldn't be on there. Hell I got put in Facebook jail for 30 days because I called someone a potato...they called it "bullying." I got an appeal code for their oversight board that does nothing but still...

Is it getting ridiculous? Yes. Is it likely something else topples them? I bet. But we all have the freedom to not use that platform.

Have you ever been on Parler or CloutHub? That's even worse.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Nov 12 at 2021 9:23 PM

2021-11-12T21:23:16-05:00

OK, we get that you don't like what Facebook is doing. RallyPoint has done the same thing, both control the speech that they are going to allow, and they take action against the speech that they don't like.

They can do this, because it is not the government regulating the speech.

If you want to change it, you'll need 292 Representatives and 67 Senators to agree with you, and then you will have to convince 38 state legislatures to ratify that decision. Until then, you'll have to live with it.

The public and public opinion do not have the right nor the authority to control what happens on either Facebook or RallyPoint. Both companies have owners, and those owners have property rights. I don't like the conspiracy theories put out by the John Birchers, or the evangelical preachers message that all humans are depraved and evil, or the Nazis marching through a predominantly Jewish town. All of those things are, however, protected by the Constitution, and therefore protected by anyone who ever swore an oath to protect and defend that same Constitution.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Nov 13 at 2021 10:19 AM

2021-11-13T10:19:57-05:00

Here's my take. First, Facebook is a private organization, free to decide what content they want to allow or disallow. Should they become a repository which only allows their view of the world to be circulated, they run the risk of losing more and more subscribers. Believe me, they are on thin ice with me as it stands now, and I've already given up my twitter account. Today, my kids aren't even interested in Facebook, and I would imagine it will eventually become something of the past (and I'm not referring to their name change to Meta... Stupid name by the way). Facebook to me is a place to tell my friends and family what I'm up to and to essentially keep a journal for myself. I used to post political opinions on it, but gave up about 4 years ago as I learned it was pointless and counterproductive. Some of my friends didn't always agree with my point of view and it would tend to hurt our relationship with each other, especially when we can't truly express ourselves purely by the written word vs the way we can face to face. So I keep my FB messages positive and only post media items which are directly personal to me and my family and/or related to something I am an expert in.

Personally, I am for allowing anyone to post whatever they want and I believe that the censoring by Facebook is dumb. With the exception of actual law breaking and obviously lewd/inappropriate content (porn, kiddie porn, command and control or threats of violence, etc) I say let the people say what they want and allow us all to see who's saying it. That is the beauty of free speech, if one person wants to say something outlandish, others have the ability to counter that speech. Let them. What better place to see what people think? Today, entertainers, famous athletes, and politicians post content and opinions all the time. They run the risk of losing support, popularity, and in essence their livelihood. That's on them. If they want to say something dumb or devoid of facts, let them. Now I know what they think and I get to decide whether I want to respond and/or discontinue listening to / respecting them.

You say Hamilton and Madison may not have been thinking of the Internet, but I have to disagree. They know all to well how history provided the written word, education enable more and more people to read, and books and newspapers eventually began to circulate and provide information much quicker to the world. Why would they not think things would progress to a state where information could be instantaneously delivered to anyone in the world?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 13 at 2021 1:31 PM

2021-11-13T13:31:49-05:00

We need to work on getting rid of lies hate espoused by people and organizations. It will be easier said than done.

Response by CPL LaForest Gray made Nov 14 at 2021 9:25 AM

2021-11-14T09:25:10-05:00

1.) If the law of the land ( #usa ) is to govern the people fairly, then why are their secret mechanisms (Grand Jury) of the law? It always says :

“The State of/The United States of American _________ vs. Defendant __________”

When they bring charges against the defendant(s)

2.) U.S. Freedoms are falsehoods under the law : In a court room you can be both jailed and fined for contempt for either speaking out (1st Amendment) or for not speaking/answering questions (5th Amendment) ....

2a.) Courtrooms and courthouses generally are places where free speech may be restricted. 1. Expressive conduct as a form of speech ― Free speech protection applies not only to spoken or written words but also to expressive conduct. Wearing an armband, for example, may be a symbolic act protected by the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment does not give citizens the right to exercise free speech rights on any government property at any time.”

https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/http://www.sog.unc.edu/files/additional_files/Free%20speech%20rights%20in%20courthouses%20Nov%2012.pdf

Also ....

3.) Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability, which means that they cannot be sued for their decisions as prosecutors, no matter how outrageous their conduct. The Supreme Court has held that absolute immunity protects prosecutors who knowingly used false testimony and suppressed evidence in a murder trial”.

Jun 22, 2020

https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/after-40-years-is-it-time-to-reconsider-absolute-immunity-for-prosecutors/

*** I read & fully comprehend ***

Whoops!

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Nov 14 at 2021 5:07 PM

2021-11-14T17:07:33-05:00

To a certain right wing group that thinks that only they can say what they want. They're wrong!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 15 at 2021 11:33 AM

2021-11-15T11:33:53-05:00

There is no relationship between Facebook and the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT fom intervening with free speech. Not Private entities that provide a service that you have no right to use. The constitution does not entitle you to use someone elses service as you see fit.

Response by PO1 Paul M. made Nov 18 at 2021 10:48 AM

2021-11-18T10:48:08-05:00

I originally joined Facebook when MySpace was the rage. Facebook at the time was a way to reconnect with old friends and family. We shared pics of kids and what was going on, exchanged "what are you up to now", etc. I never liked, nor got involved with the whole "posting my personal dirt and angst" thing. That is ok for some, not for others. The platform has evolved into a place for all sorts of weird and dangerous exchange of ideas and opinion. I, however, will continue to use it as a place to stay in touch with friends and family in a way not possible 25 or 30 years ago. I do like a lot of the groups available such as Far Side, Old West, Bigfoot and others as a form of entertainment. I will just say YOU DO YOU and let me be me. I stay out of your back yard and you stay out of mine. I do not agree with a lot that goes on in social media and only have Facebook and MeWe. Judgement is the realm of history and I will just mind my own counsel on what goes on and suggest that most do the same. If you don't like what is on it, then get out. Don't read it. Don't join. Private ownership of these sites and 2nd Amendment issues will be around long after you are gone. Respect the rights we swore to defend. Live in the peace you earned. I always felt that what others think of me is none of my business and what I think of others is none of theirs so long as I don't put it out on social media or in public where it becomes every one else's business. This is my opinion on the subject. Like it or don't. I will respect your right to your opinion and the freedom to express it. I swore to defend that as well as the rest of the Constitution. Please respect others so that you may be respected in return. I think the Golden Rule applies even if it makes me seem naive or outdated.

Response by PO1 Kenneth HOGAN, Ph.D. made Jan 22 at 2022 3:02 PM

2022-01-22T15:02:46-05:00

Interesting, I stopped posting to Facebook a couple of years ago as the content is what is on people's minds, not researched well, manipulative, and a lot of garbage. Free speech, yes it is being taken advantage on social media sites to the point it is being misinterpreted and manipulated out of content like the Second Amendment. It is bringing out the worst in people especially those who are passive aggressive and normally would not speak their mind in public while gravitating towards other with similar mindsets. This all opens them to the internet trolls, (domestic and foreign) who draw on other's fears and vulnerabilities to cause chaos, unity, and confusion. Facebook helped amplify the voiceless to express whatever is on their mind weather it is relevant, productive, or real that is leading to a confusing information and misconceptions that are not helpful to maintaining peace and harmony.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Jan 24 at 2022 12:13 PM

2022-01-24T12:13:04-05:00

Ryan Callahan Excellent topic for discussion
I offer four opinions:
1) Most likely income from advertising run wild is at the foundation of FB's choices - it's business plan and how it functions..
2) Most social media websites offend in the same ways as FB.
3) "Your right to free speech ends when it infringes upon another’s basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Yes. Our right to freedom is contingent upon our right to chose to be law abiding which, as you said, means our right to all of the freedoms with which we are empowered not infringing on the rights of others. Our agreed upon laws further clarify what illegal infringing is.
4) You did an excellent job of clearly and understandable stating the issues, and providing associated links.