Is the 1st Amendment in its last death throws?

CPO Nate S. — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:07:37 -0400

Oooooopppppps - Left off the answers. Got distracted and hit send prematurely: So, the answers to the REAL question would have been:

(1) No, I am NOT in support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.

(2) Yes, I am in TACID support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.

(3) Yes, I am in FULL support of an Executive Order to change the liability protections of social media, especially for executive leadership of such social media platforms.

(4) Unsure, if I do or don't support such an action, but there is another response to the implications of this complex question that needs to be discussed at much greater length and very publicly.

Sorry, I left off the polling question. Darn!!!
----------------------
We are on very thin ice now. In the past 24-hrs or so (for those who might be fact-checking the exact times), Twitter-verse has now moved from a presumable "free speech" platform to a "free speech only if you agree with the leadership that manages the platform!"

I am of two minds:

Mind (1) - Hammer the hell out of "Social Media Platforms like Twitter" and make them retrain their "ubiquitous platform status" as the definition of a "user experience platform", as taken from Techtopia (https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29304/user-experience-platform-uxp) that is defined as:

"A user experience platform (UXP) is the collective set of Web-based tools and technologies that interact with and are consumed by an end user. It is a solution platform that integrates all of the technologies that provide user interaction and interfacing capabilities or features."

If Twitter users are looking for an 'experience to exchange ideas' (some as 'opinions' - rational or not) then the free form of those expressions cannot be impeded by those running the platform.

So, lets take a look some definitions. "Social" as one online dictionary is defined as:

adjective

1. relating to society or its organization. E.g. "Alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem."

Some Similar words: community; community-based; collective; group; popular
Some Opposite words: individual

2. needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities. "We are social beings as well as individuals."

noun

1. an informal social gathering, especially one organized by the members of a particular club or group. "a church social"

"Media" as online in one online dictionary is defined as:

noun

1. a plural of medium.

2. (usually used with a plural verb) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely: "The media are covering the speech tonight."

adjective

1. pertaining to or concerned with such means: a job in media research.

So, if Twitter is a "Social Media" platform it is by constructed definition:

"A place where multiple and varied interactions take place among a diverse range of participants that use such a platform to communicate the free exchange of ideas in a community-environment, leaving to it's members their understanding of exchanges of unrestricted interactions as part of the responsibility of accepting or rejecting for themselves whether or not to believe the ideas so posted free from the influence of the creators of those exchange platforms." Or, am I a little off in this "constructed definition"?

Mind (2) - Let it be! In other words, move to a different Social Media Platform where some bright person(s) have come together to create an alternate Twitter-like Twitter verse aka "community" that people will love more than Twitter that will respect all voices LEFT-CENTER-RIGHT!!! A platform that will have droves of Twitter-users flocking to it thus plummeting the value of Twitter to its investors. Let the market hammer Twitter.

The beauty of RP is that we agree to disagree and "censorship" seems to be kept well in check. I have noticed in my time on RP that there are some who want to censor what other people say and have tried, but others have not allowed it, at least so far!

As if people need reminding, but I will remind people anyway - the Founders placed the Freedom of Speech and Assembly 1st among our inalienable rights because "free and responsible speech" since time has begun has been to clarion call to action of those whose right to speak their mind are often the 1st target of those in power who don't want to be questioned and expect people to just "shut-up and do what you are told (by unspoken implication - because of what the ubiquitous "I" am telling you will hurt you and enhance the ubiquitous "me" and I only care about me so FU." crowd desires to impose.) Given such implied sentiments by those giving the implied "shut up and do what you are told" commandment, reminds me always of the kind of thugs that have plagued our world since time began. Thugs, whose insecurity is only enabled when others don't think critically about the unintended consequences of actions on both sides of a line drawn in the figurative sand!

As always, this top will draw a lot of heat, so get those magical shields ready for some fireworks as RP followers respond. There will be differing 'opinions' on the gravity of what an Executive Order on this issue will mean and those ideas need to be discussed openly and honestly with the media accepting responsibility for the same.

One cannot cause a problem then somehow say they have nothing to do with the results of a problem they created when challenged. This is the very definition of - hy·poc·ri·sy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense"!

So the REAL question is this:

Are you in support of an Executive Order that changes the liability protections of "social media platform managing leadership" when they are acting in a purely political manner to be the arbitrator of opinion on their platforms?

Frankly, I'd like to ask the partner question, which...:

Is the issuing of an Executive Order that changes the liability protections of "social media platform managing executive leadership" consistent with the overall intent and spirit of the 1st Amendment? Why? or Why not? {aka use case law or other documented example to justify your answer}

I believe both questions contribute to this discussion.

Special Note: I have also posted this in "Humor", because some will think all of this very silly by those one both sides spun up about this issue. But, is this a silly subject or a subject with such weight they if we as a nation ignore it, it will actually destroy the very fabric of the framer's intent?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs; COL Lee Flemming; LCdr (Rabbah) Rona Matlow; Maj Marty Hogan; SMSGT Gerald "Doc" Thomas; SCPO Morris Ramsey; Lt Col Charlie Brown; LTC Private RallyPoint Member; Maj William W. 'Bill' Price; LTC Stephen C.; LTC Stephen F.; COL Lee Flemming; Capt Dwayne Conyers; CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member; SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth; LTC Jason Mackay; MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi; MSgt Paul Connors (Publishing); SFC James J Palmer IV (JP4); SSG Carlos Madden

What is a User Experience Platform (UXP)? - Definition from Techopedia

User Experience Platform UXP Definition - A user experience platform (UXP) is the collecti

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made May 28 at 2020 9:13 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:13:52 -0400

First, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that applies to private business. Twitter is a private business, with rules that each user must agree to before using the service. If you don't like the rules, stay off Twitter.

Second, Twitter is not censoring anything. They merely posted a warning that the content of the following 'tweet' may not be accurate. Perfectly within their right to do so. Don't like the warning label, then don't spread misinformation. Or, better yet, stay off Twitter.

Third, the President does not have the authority to change the law by executive order. That is the act of a Tyrant, not a President.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made May 28 at 2020 9:18 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:18:25 -0400

When a MEDIUM takes control of the MESSAGE, it changes itself irrevocably. A medium is merely a conduit and deserves liability protections because it is separated from the (sometimes hostile, racist, or terrorist) messages. If Twitter takes on the role of arbiter of truth, it becomes a public censor. I say public rather than private, and that part is certainly debatable. I think when a medium becomes in widespread use by the public at large, the messages become public messages, not private ones. So when Twitter controls content, or the message itself, it has stepped into the public sphere and has taken upon itself a new role, in deciding for us all what speech is acceptable and what may not be uttered in public.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made May 28 at 2020 9:19 AM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:19:02 -0400

Another question to consider is, how does this or the government position in opposition to itself and it's previous arguments regarding "net-neutrality."

Also, even if I thought this was a good idea, the appropriate avenue is not Executive Order, but Congressional Action.

Response by Alan K. made May 28 at 2020 9:19 AM

Alan K. — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:19:44 -0400

Only if we let it happen....Shame on U.S. If they are going to put warnings on tweets....Be uniform in your warnings....They are certainly NOT uniform at all

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made May 28 at 2020 9:20 AM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:20:54 -0400

CPO Nate S. Also, thanks for a well thought out and thorough post.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made May 28 at 2020 9:27 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:27:32 -0400

If they insist on being the "fact checkers" they should be liable. If they allow freedom to post to their users without putting themselves in charge of it, no.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 28 at 2020 9:33 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:33:59 -0400

Thank you for the share brother Nathan, interesting share brother.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made May 28 at 2020 9:52 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Thu, 28 May 2020 09:52:46 -0400

Caveat emptor - buyer beware. You know you are stepping into a potential cesspool when you go into ALL social media including this one - you never know if you will get reasoned responses or virulent rhetoric...

Response by COL John McClellan made May 28 at 2020 11:38 AM

COL John McClellan — Thu, 28 May 2020 11:38:43 -0400

I'm not sure what's going on right now can be fixed by an examination of the 1A. This "platform" is being used by some bad actors and irresponsible public officials to masquerade as an official source of government information. There are many dubious people out there don't necessarily have their facts straight, but who as private actors can be right or wrong, politically motivated or not, and that's fine - caveat emptor. But when elected or appointed officials start using this or any platform for dis-information, propaganda or flat-ass lies... it's a real problem. Our President, who was so concerned about his previous opponent for the office using a private e-mail server in an official capacity (a legit concern on its face) continues to use his private (unsecure) cell phone and is using his private Twitter account as if it's = the official White House communications office. It's as if he thinks he can be on the inside and on the outside of his own government simultaneously. His behavior is unprecedented and very destructive, IMHO. Trust in our government - which had already been eroded significantly in my lifetime by many people and events - is now under direct, purposeful attack by the highest officials, for their own selfish ends. It's horrible. Absolutely horrible.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2020 12:49 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 May 2020 12:49:31 -0400

Twitter is now deciding what will be labeled misinformation? Will liberals, too, get warning labels? Who decides? Will every user be read and reviewed, or just Trump? Dorsey should not have opened this door.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made May 28 at 2020 12:59 PM

Capt Gregory Prickett — Thu, 28 May 2020 12:59:53 -0400

How is the First Amendment implicated? Twitter isn't a governmental outlet, they can censor whoever they want, because it is their property.

CPO Nate S., I want to fill you yard and your windows, and put bumper stickers on your car opposing Trump's re-election. Can I do that? If not, are you imposing on my free speech?

The proposition you are making is socialist in nature. You are attempting to take away someone else's property, and to keep him from controlling what is done with that property.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 29 at 2020 4:03 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 29 May 2020 04:03:38 -0400

Thank you my friend CPO Nate S. for a great post. Social media are more anti-social to those with conservative leanings in social areas especially including faith, 1st and second amendment responsibilities and rights.
Sadly some social media such as twitter are clamoring for perceived rights as opposed to their responsibilities.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2020 2:01 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 May 2020 14:01:27 -0400

(1) I do not think Executive Orders are the way to handle this, especially during this particular political climate. Not because I don't agree with the one that is doing them, but because we are at a point of division where I don't think one side should be making decisions like that without getting a super-majority of support. MAJ Bryan Zeski is right, Congressional Action I believe is the correct approach. Though the protections that they are trying to remove are a very important base for the internet to even exist. Because if you are going to hold the company or platform responsible for what is said by the users, they will have to moderate what is being said so that they are not liable for the content being posted. And their active moderation of what is being posted is will more than likely be more restrictive on the Free Speech than just putting a "Fact Checking" tag that they are currently doing.

As for the warning that was placed on the tweet that caused this uproar, personally, I think it's about time. I mean, we've watched the last 3 1/2 years of rhetoric that has been founded in large part on misinformation from what is going to go down as maybe not the U.S.'s worst liar, but definitely the U.S.'s most well documented liar. And people need to start fact checking what is being told to them and not just accepting whatever is being said at the time. It is very important for anyone to get their information from more than one source, always! Be skeptical! It is your responsibility to be informed of the world around you, don't rely on a single source for information no matter what side of the aisle you stand on. Relying on a single biased source can land you in an echo chamber online where the only opinions you hear are the ones that you want to hear, especially on Facebook and Twitter.
It is a dangerous precedent to start putting "fact-checking" warnings on tweets, because that can steer the narrative and make people question what is said depending on where the warnings are placed by the platform. And again, that can lead to bias. But if they followed through and put it on every source that it blatantly wrong, then yeah. It would encourage people to come to their own conclusions, and I support that.
On that note though, if this Executive Order is *actually* followed through on, I would not be surprised if they remove many thousands of accounts. Because by this order they would be responsible for the content that is put on it by the users. And inciting violence and spreading racism and hate is a large problem on both the large platforms Twitter & Facebook. If nothing to say about large swathes of misinformation.