That’s a good idea, but I still think big sites are public spaces at this point.
This is an argument for a publicly-funded “digital public square”, not an argument for stripping private companies of their rights.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
“Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
To your shopping mall example, you got it wrong. …wikipedia.org/…/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Rob…
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
You should read the link you posted:
This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.
So my analogy wouldn’t apply to Californian shopping malls, but it would to others, and it would apply federally.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Why not both?
While I agree that punishing companies for success isn’t a good idea, we aren’t talking about small startups or local business ran by individual entrepreneurs or members of the community here. We’re talking about absurdly huge corporations with reach and influence the likes that few businesses ever reach. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to apply a different set of rules to them, as they are distinctly different situations.
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Because one is violating the first amendment rights of a private company, the other isn’t.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I fully agree. Small groups have limited resources. But google and facebook have a ton of resources, they can handle more oversight.