Is this a Free Society?

[CCitizen]

This is a hypothetical and yet very likely society. We call it USA 2026. The First Amendment is still the Law. There is a large list of proscribed opinions, books, movies, music videos which are offensive to Liberals for different reasons. The laws prohibit neither the media nor individuals to use these materials offensive to Liberals. Yet, by now


-- All major Social Media sites have been pressured to ban anyone expressing proscribed opinions


-- Any individual publicly expressing proscribed opinions is added to the Blacklist. Most companies would not dare to hire blacklisted individuals. Many banks, stores, and restaurants would not serve blacklisted individuals.


-- Laws against offensive speech are enforced much more strongly in UK 2026 then in UK 2019, but we are talking about USA.


As you may have guessed, I have posted this question on another site in 2016. Now such situation seems much more likely.

[Captain Obvious]

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new

Severely limited voting choice so I won't vote in the poll.

The question is far, far more complicated and considering other options - like living in other countries, yes - we still are somewhat "free" but ignorance and a fat and happy citizenship here has cause our freedoms to erode fairly materially.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I don't beleive the tech fascists will need to be pressured into doing what they have already voluntarily begun to do.

[Dr. Who]

I don't beleive the tech fascists will need to be pressured into doing what they have already voluntarily begun to do.

They have voluntarily chosen to censor because they become party to lawsuits and criminal investigations. Back in the pre-tech days, newspapers did not give people free rein to broadcast hate beyond the Jim Crow days. Why should they now put themselves and their fortunes at risk for the free speech of people who suffer from paranoid delusions? They are free enterprise. They don't enjoy government protection.

[The Xl]

We don't even live in a free society right now. Currently, the law and the modern day interpretation of the Constitution allows for the government to lay claim to your life, your liberty, your labor, and your property under certain parameters. There is no need to suggest a hypothetical, the society we live in now isn't free.

[Rationalist]

Free is relative. We're freer than most of the world on most things. However, there are nations that are freer than us on certain specific things.

[Rationalist]

They have voluntarily chosen to censor because they become party to lawsuits and criminal investigations. Back in the pre-tech days, newspapers did not give people free rein to broadcast hate beyond the Jim Crow days. Why should they now put themselves and their fortunes at risk for the free speech of people who suffer from paranoid delusions? They are free enterprise. They don't enjoy government protection.

Well, there's a catch. Most major tech companies rose up via government funds or government tax exemptions. Because it wasn't a free market that led to the rise of these new forms of media, there's an argument for regulating these companies in return for either the public money they received or taxes they avoided.

Also, the oligopolistic or monopolistic nature of many media markets now opens the door for enforcement of antitrust laws.

[Captain Obvious]

Free is relative. We're freer than most of the world on most things. However, there are nations that are freer than us on certain specific things.

Exactly, that was pretty much my earlier point.

[Dr. Who]

Well, there's a catch. Most major tech companies rose up via government funds or government tax exemptions. Because it wasn't a free market that led to the rise of these new forms of media, there's an argument for regulating these companies in return for either the public money they received or taxes they avoided.

Also, the oligopolistic or monopolistic nature of many media markets now opens the door for enforcement of antitrust laws.

Legally, their funding does not provide them with any protection under the law. They are not government entities. While I don't disagree that some enjoy a monopoly, which may or may not be as a result of government protection, that only allows legal challenges regarding violations of the antitrust act which necessarily draws in the government as a defendant but has no bearing on issues like freedom of speech in private forums.

[Rationalist]

Legally, their funding does not provide them with any protection under the law. They are not government entities. While I don't disagree that some enjoy a monopoly, which may or may not be as a result of government protection, that only allows legal challenges regarding violations of the antitrust act which necessarily draws in the government as a defendant but has no bearing on issues like freedom of speech in private forums.

One of the issues that comes about with modern media is that freedom of speech in the private sector is limited by policies that establish a difference between a platform or a publisher. Each category has different rules and advantages. Unfortunately, most social media seems to be allowed to have the advantages of both but the limitations of neither.

Given the censorship present among Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter, I would argue they aren't platforms but are instead publishers. Being a publisher means that you have more liability for what is broadcast, but you also have more freedom to censor.

If these companies were instead treated as platforms, they would have less liability but less power to censor without facing discrimination suits.