Posted on May 19, 2019
Why Freedom of Speech Should Apply to Google, Facebook and the Internet
1.17K
69
20
19
19
0
Food for thought. I believe the First Amendment should apply.
Why Freedom of Speech Should Apply to Google, Facebook and the Internet
Posted from frontpagemag.com
Internet
1st Amendment
Google
Facebook
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
6
6
0
5
5
0
I agree with you Lt Col Charlie Brown. However, I don’t believe that these social media giants can be tamed (unbiased First Amendment access for all). They’re too big so it’s too late. They’ll continue their leftist ways. They’re no different than mainstream media.
Any commentary by Zuckerberg (and his ilk) to the contrary is simply empty, meaningless and deceptive rhetoric.
Capt Daniel Goodman SPC Douglas Bolton CW5 Jack Cardwell
Any commentary by Zuckerberg (and his ilk) to the contrary is simply empty, meaningless and deceptive rhetoric.
Capt Daniel Goodman SPC Douglas Bolton CW5 Jack Cardwell
(5)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
I just believe one must use the consider the source philosophy. 1st Ammendment should apply but social media giants are allowed to have their own bias. It is the users responsibility to be aware of the bias of any particular social media platform and make an informed decision whether or not to use that platform. This concept already exists with cable news networks, every one of them have their own particular biases and viewers pick and choose which to watch and believe.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
Concur, Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen. I addressed this to some extent in a comment to Capt Daniel Goodman. It simply means (in my opinion) that the world’s largest social media website is a leftist driven organization like many of the news media outlets.
There are many of us that have some sense of discernment and wish to know the truth regardless of which path it takes. I shudder to think of the millions and millions of sheeple that will question nothing so long as it has the imprimatur of a media giant. It sounds somewhat arrogant, I know, but that’s what I think is happening even as we have this discussion.
There are many of us that have some sense of discernment and wish to know the truth regardless of which path it takes. I shudder to think of the millions and millions of sheeple that will question nothing so long as it has the imprimatur of a media giant. It sounds somewhat arrogant, I know, but that’s what I think is happening even as we have this discussion.
(3)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
LTC Stephen C. Not arrogant at all. Fortunately social media appears to only be slightly left of center as compared to many MSM but many of today's generation have been weaned on SM, so it is frightening to think of the possible influence it may have.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
You know, there's an interesting flip side to that...did it ever occur to all of.you at all that such mechanisms, by don't of their being essentially ubiquitous at this point, have pretty well subsumed the roles of being actual public utilities, and thus subject to pretty much to the same basic regulatory statutes? It's just a question is mixed over sometimes of late, I figured the concept might interest all of you to possibly reflect on as well...I entirely grant my premise might be wrong, however, I'd thought the point at least seriously debatable, if nothing else, you know?
(4)
(0)
LTC Stephen C.
Capt Daniel Goodman, with that analogy, you could say the same about mainstream media, yet their bias ultimately becomes nothing more than constraint of First Amendment speech. Nothing is done to regulate them.
Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Lt Col Charlie Brown Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
(2)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
I follow...as I'd tried to say despite the typos, it was just something I'd mulled over philosophically, of late...I entirely realize that might or might not have to do with the theme of the thread here, I was just rather struck by the analogy I seemed to be perceiving, it was just something I'd thought might offer some interesting food for thought from a slightly different oerspective, that was all is meant, honest...I entirely realize the object of the thread was about free speech, I did perceive that, honest, plus, I didn't know what my thought might imply for that thohght, it just seemed that both thoughts were, if nothing else,.at.least possibly tangentially intertwined, I'd thought, maybe, you know?
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google