Rp logo flat shadow
Command Post What is this?
Posted on Nov 12, 2021
Ryan Callahan
14.7K
183
57
32
32
0
Avatar feed
Responses: 15
SFC Retention Operations Nco
24
24
0
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
(24)
Comment
(0)
Erika Fitzpatrick
Erika Fitzpatrick
>1 y
That’s the ideal notion of the First Amendment. It’s supposed to protect the freedom of speech, and not establish a religion. The question is always how the law is interpreted within that clause. And of course that has a lot to do with who sits in government in any era and the balance of power on the Supreme Court.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SSG Dave Johnston
SSG Dave Johnston
>1 y
Isn't it interesting that some social-media fact checker, can shutdown scientific discussion just because it offends their, and their employers political ideology and values... I think Randolph Hurst tried that during the last century, and monarchs before him, and the Catholic Church before them... ad-nauseum; those in power will remain in power so-long as they control the masses, by what ever means.
(5)
Reply
(0)
SGT Bruce Savage
SGT Bruce Savage
>1 y
Erika Fitzpatrick the constitution is writen in english, why does it need to be interpreted? The supreme court is supposed to apply the constitution not interpret it.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Ric Smith
MAJ Ric Smith
>1 y
I regret to inform you that you have entirely failed to comprehend how section 230 of Title 47, U.S. Code, OBLIGATES online platforms to publish third party content if they want to benefit from the immunity to prosecution contained in section 230. When platforms begin to edit or control content, they become publishers and no longer enjoy the legal immunity of section 230. Facebook and other platforms want it both ways. They want to control third party content BUT still benefit from the immunity of section 230. They can’t have it both ways.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Unit Supply Specialist
13
13
0
You should read any "terms for Service" prior to accepting... you may be signing away what "you think" is your 1st Amendment right.
(13)
Comment
(0)
SGT Air Defense Radar Repairer
SGT (Join to see)
>1 y
Well since the private company is not the government you don't have 1st Amendment Rights.
(4)
Reply
(0)
SSG Rafael R. Rodriguez Sr.
SSG Rafael R. Rodriguez Sr.
>1 y
Exactly. Reads between the lines. That's why I don't have a FB.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Unit Supply Specialist
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Mary G.
SGT Mary G.
>1 y
SGT (Join to see) - I agree those are subject to a companies conditions. Even so we also do not have the right to violate agreed upon laws in our use of FB, simply because FB may not discourage or address violations.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PFC David Foster
8
8
0
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.
(8)
Comment
(0)
CDR Founder Of The Liberty Accelerator $Kill Br!Dg3 Internship
CDR (Join to see)
>1 y
It comes down to understanding the words as meant in the 1700's. Start with the definitions from those days, and the knowledge will set us free.
(4)
Reply
(0)
CDR Founder Of The Liberty Accelerator $Kill Br!Dg3 Internship
(2)
Reply
(0)
PFC David Foster
PFC David Foster
>1 y
Nikki Thomas - It's not the government doing it. Private companies have the right to serve who they want. The reason Twitter blocks people like Trump is because they don't want to be held responsible and consider him a risk and a liability to their business. The people that own Facebook and Twitter are literally, they can afford an army of lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do, but you are free to sue them, so it Trump, if you think they have broken any laws, civil or criminal.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close