Is Big Tech violating the Constitution

[nathanbforrest45]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech. As we all know Big Tech is censoring anyone who goes against the agenda of the Democrat Party by kicking them off social media. It will be argued that Big Tech is private business and therefore not bound by the 1st Amendment. However, it would appear that Big Tech is doing the bidding of the Democrat/Progressive Party as an end run around the Constitution.

We have all seen the episodes of say Law and Order where a private citizen breaks into someone's home and steals incriminating evidence and turns it over to the police. This evidence is then ruled inadmissible because it is claimed the citizen was working as an agent of the police department and therefore was also bound by Constitutional considerations. I am well aware of the fact these are fictional programs but the concept of acting as an agent would also prevail in real life.

It is my contention that Google, Youtube, Facebook et al are working as agents of the Federal Government when shutting down descent and are therefore violating the 1st Amendment rights of free speech.

Please note, this is tagged tpf. I will ask the moderators to remove anyone who attempts to counter this argument by using Donald J. Trump in any manner as a rebuttal.

[DGUtley]

Doesnt the fact that the government gave them special immunity further your arguments?

[Chris]

No.

It is similar in that free speech is being restricted.

The difference is when the government does it, it violates restrictions we the people created for it, whereas private enterprise does it, it violates no restrictions, in fact we the people create and agree to those restrictions in the market place in our purchases and subscriptions and memberships.

It is the result of unrestricted individualism.

[Standing Wolf]

If anyone were truly being silenced, there might be an argument such as that to be made, but no one is. The sites in question are popular - but they represent an infinitesimally small part of the Internet.

[Common Sense]

That's a stretch. It's like saying anyone who's ever testified in court, allowed the police to search their property or served on a jury, is somehow a government entity.

The fact is, these media platforms are private entities. First amendment protections don't exist within them anymore than they do in someone's house you're in.

And here I thought conservatives championed private property rights and fewer government regulations.

[Standing Wolf]

... And here I thought conservatives championed private property rights and fewer government regulations.

Some do, until they do not.

[Common Sense]

If anyone were truly being silenced, there might be an argument such as that to be made, but no one is. The sites in question are popular - but they represent an infinitesimally small part of the Internet.

And that's the thing. I see conservatives all over social media claiming that they're being silenced. Yet I see them all over social media saying it. They love playing the victim card without being actual victims. These are the same people who claim white men are the most oppressed group in America.

[Common Sense]

Some do, until they do not.

The Constitution a la cartè.

Some do it with the bible as well.

[nathanbforrest45]

That's a stretch. It's like saying anyone who's ever testified in court, allowed the police to search their property or served on a jury, is somehow a government entity.

The fact is, these media platforms are private entities. First amendment protections don't exist within them anymore than they do in someone's house you're in.

And here I thought conservatives championed private property rights and fewer government regulations.

The issue is not private property rights but the possibility the private companies are acting as agents of the government. The fact they have not been elected or directly appointed is secondary to their actions solely for the benefit of the government. As Mr. Utley points out they have been given immunity from any legal remedy for their actions.

It doesn't matter if the censorship is widespread or just one person, it is still censorship and in several cases has caused harm to those it is censoring, such as Mike Lindell or the woman from the Mandelorian or The Epoch Times (who's founders came to this country to escape government control of their lives). To say no one is being silences shows either someone who is brain dead or someone who knowingly condones the censorship currently going on.

[Common Sense]

The issue is not private property rights but the possibility the private companies are acting as agents of the government. The fact they have not been elected or directly appointed is secondary to their actions solely for the benefit of the government. As Mr. Utley points out they have been given immunity from any legal remedy for their actions.

It doesn't matter if the censorship is widespread or just one person, it is still censorship and in several cases has caused harm to those it is censoring, such as Mike Lindell or the woman from the Mandelorian or The Epoch Times (who's founders came to this country to escape government control of their lives). To say no one is being silences shows either someone who is brain dead or someone who knowingly condones the censorship currently going on.

I don't really see any evidence that suggests that these companies are acting as agents of the government. In fact, many of these companies have found themselves at adds with the government.

These corporate descions aren't at the behest of the federal government. If that was true, they would have done Trump's bidding. These companies are acting in their own self interests and are more often than not just enforcing their terms of service.

While I don't agree with cancel culture and the firing of people due to their political affiliations or controversial comments, companies aren't doing this because they've been instructed or pressured to. They do it because it's safe and it protects them and their profits.

...and sometimes these social media companies ban people, delete comments, add warnings or fire people because it's the right thing to do morally, or simply as an effort to combat lies and hatred. Quite often, that aligns with the values of liberals and Democrats.