S.19.2-4: Expanding 1st amend article II speech rights to social media (Tabled)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Section 1:Title: Expanding our citizens first amendment article II speech rights to social media.

Section 2: Legal argument and social media Definition.
2.1 The government of the south believes in freedom of speech for all as stated by article II, section 1 of the southern Constitution, “All persons of The South are bound to their free expression of their ideas and thoughts.”
2.15 This law shall enforce this sprit online and within the public sphere of our social media. No citizen of the south shall be banned or censor because of political or ideological belief or speech.  
2.2 unless, “Free speech of the individual shall be protected by the law with exceptions made for speech and expression which inflicts harm onto another.”
2.25 Threatening speech like threats of death or physical injury shall be exception from this law as stated by 2.2. The moderation shall moderate the public sphere based on local, regional and national criminal laws under this exception.
2.3 The government of the south believes that social media is part of the public sphere and we believe like the street corner that people have a right to freedom of speech.
2.4 What is considered social media and the public sphere?
2.45 Social media/public sphere “street corners” are a semi-public outlet where all beliefs are shared, which makes up a large percentage of the online social output.
2.5 Examples of such are facebook, twitter, youtube and other large over 10 million social internet sites that are aimed at social contact of our citizens.

Section 3: Penalties and fines for censoring speech
3.1   Unless speech falls under criminal law stated in section 2.2 and 2.25 they shall be fined or open to lawsuit by the victim.
3.2   A judge within the southern region if it doesn’t fall within 2.2 or 2.25 can choose to fine public sphere provider from an minimum of 100 dollars to a maximum 2,500 dollars per violation depending on violation of free speech rights.

Section 4: This shall become law upon being signed by governor.

sponsor: matthew27

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Well, brothers and sisters we  over the past couple of decades have found ourselves living in a society increasingly relying on massive social networking and "public" social media to do business and to discuss ideas that effect the course of our republic. And this means for us officials in government it is high time to fight for our citizens article II freedom of speech over which is now considered by society the same as the street corner down the street. It is within my and quite a few legal experts opinions that Facebook, youtubes and twitter has abused my voters freedom of speech and effected billions of dollars of our economy and this simply can NOT be ignored by this delegates of ours. Speech that isn't violent and doesn't break laws should be protected no matter how ugly it maybe.

To not evolve speech protection is to live in the 18th century and to act like billions of people don't live their lives as people of that century once did expressing their ideas on the street corner or at the local bar down the street.

One Economic expert, jack stone said, "If we don't do something the speech of tens of millions will be effected costing the economy billions of dollars of economic growth".

 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I favor this legislation.

[Leinad]

First off, most of these businesses are outside of the South (primarily on Fremont's Pacific Coast), so it's outside of our jurisdiction to actually do this for all if even any major social media sites.

Secondly, if a private entity wants to manage the views represented on their website it's their right to do so, and IMO it's a rather blatant crossing of government's realm of authority to force these websites to accept all views (honestly the blame for most of these places being trash is more likely due to a lack of moderation than too much moderation, but at the end of the day--and this is kinda my point--that's neither here nor there).

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Platforms like facebook, twitter and youtube have hundreds of millions if not billions of members and I don't believe society can afford not to apply constitutional law to them as it would in general society. One group of ideas wouldn't be refused a platform on the street corner like this and I don't believe it should be online either. I am not talking about trolls, but banishment of entire political beliefs and ideology. The thing is who's to say that they won't all ban the republican party and any opinion held by it, while becoming 100% for the democratic party in the near future? I don't think that would be good for democracy or our south.

Maybe government should consider setting up social free zones online that would be covered by full first amendment rights? would that be a better solution?

I understand  your first point, but this would only cover citizens of the south kind of like how google, facebook and others have to respect the laws of the eu or another countries. They would have to follow their legal system and the south is no different. 

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Asking for amendment

2.6 These requirements on social media shall only apply to the freedom of speech of the southern region and residence.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Platforms like facebook, twitter and youtube have hundreds of millions if not billions of members and I don't believe society can afford not to apply constitutional law to them as it would in general society. One group of ideas wouldn't be refused a platform on the street corner like this and I don't believe it should be online either. I am not talking about trolls, but banishment of entire political beliefs and ideology. The thing is who's to say that they won't all ban the republican party and any opinion held by it, while becoming 100% for the democratic party in the near future? I don't think that would be good for democracy or our south.

Maybe government should consider setting up social free zones online that would be covered by full first amendment rights? would that be a better solution?

I understand  your first point, but this would only cover citizens of the south kind of like how google, facebook and others have to respect the laws of the eu or another countries. They would have to follow their legal system and the south is no different.  

What would your thinking be of setting up an southern region community free zone platform(call it street-corner.gov) that would be like an massive platform with the abilities of  Facebook and youtube. Such would protect speech and allow our people to interact without being threatened with being banned for their beliefs. It would be a public utility so would have the protections offered in the constitution.

This could be middle ground.

[Leinad]

The thing is, it's much like your other example, a bar, than it is a street corner. If someone owns a bar, they don't have to listen to someone go on and on about "global Jewry" or "the threat of the homosexual agenda," do they?

but banishment of entire political beliefs and ideology. The thing is who's to say that they won't all ban the republican party and any opinion held by it, while becoming 100% for the democratic party in the near future? I don't think that would be good for democracy or our south.

Outside of the obvious issue that there aren't "democratic" or "republican" parties here (), I think if someone actually ostracized half the people they would cease to have anything close to a monopoly on that type of platform.

Banning a few people for being outright racists or homophobes is hardly banning an ideology, and even if a major social media site banned an entire mainstream ideology and somehow didn't face a backlash there's many places on the internet where people can share whatever sort of views they want, so I still don't think it's enough to justify government intervention in the affairs of private businesses.

I understand  your first point, but this would only cover citizens of the south kind of like how google, facebook and others have to respect the laws of the eu or another countries. They would have to follow their legal system and the south is no different.  

I'm not sure how that would be enforced. Would someone banned from Twitter make Tweets to only the South or something like that? It's different in practice from something being banned in a specific place.

What would your thinking be of setting up an southern region community free zone platform(call it street-corner.gov) that would be like an massive platform with the abilities of  Facebook and youtube. Such would protect speech and allow our people to interact without being threatened with being banned for their beliefs. It would be a public utility so would have the protections offered in the constitution.

I don't even think it's a serious enough problem that we need to make a centrally-controlled social media site of free speech absolutism. What would it be called, BBChan?

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

I’m not entirely convinced it’s the role of the Southern Chamber or my job as Governor to be regulating that at a regional level. This probably is an argument that would be better handled at the Federal level. Delegate Leinad also made some compelling points on the matter. I think we’d have a difficult time enforcing this law and I urge it be introduced at a Federal level.

I agree. I also call on the president and congress to protect the free speech of our citizens.

This is bs that everyone on the right is being banned. What's next anyone that believes in basic conservative beliefs or closed borders? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I’m not entirely convinced it’s the role of the Southern Chamber or my job as Governor to be regulating that at a regional level. This probably is an argument that would be better handled at the Federal level. Delegate Leinad also made some compelling points on the matter. I think we’d have a difficult time enforcing this law and I urge it be introduced at a Federal level.

Once again I have to concur with the governor, Young Texan, of this great region of the South, that is Dixieland. This would appear to be a Federal issue. I encourage those in Nyman to pursue this. I hope the President of our great nation of Atlasia will take action on the concerns, of at least some of the delegates of this chamber, with regards to Freedom of speech on social media.

I agree. I also call on the president and congress to protect the free speech of our citizens.

This is bs that everyone on the right is being banned. What's next anyone that believes in basic conservative beliefs or closed borders? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8

I also concur with my fellow Mississippian we should call on the the President and Congress and the Senate to do something about protecting freedom of speech. It increasingly seem likes that those big tech companies over in Fremont want to purge anyone with views to the right of bugs bunny off of the internet.

I would like to propose a motion that:
The Southern Chamber of Delegates and the Southern Region would like to see the Federal Government take action on defending freedom of speech on the internet.

May I have a seconder for the motion?

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Seconded the motion for the federal government to do its job and protect the speech of its citizens.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Perhaps there should be a move to table this legislation?

Yeah lets table the bill, but it's a real shame the south couldn't do anything as this is a national issue that needs to be handled by the president and congress.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

per the sponsor's wishes, i move to table this legislation.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

BTW, I am hopeful that my fellow Representatives take 0 action on this.

I think it's funny how the federalists, who would be mad if we tried single payer healthcare, are now trying to enforce government action in another sector. Remember this, joining and leaving a social media platform is a complete choice. It is within the full rights of a social media platform to control who is on their site, if people don't like it they can leave the site. It is just as this very forum has the right to ban whoever it wants within the terms and conditions of its site. Would you want the government controlling who can be on atlas forum?

Arguably, this is a worse bill than anything ASV or Suburban NJ Conservative has put out there.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Arguably, this is a worse bill than anything ASV or Suburban NJ Conservative has put out there.

ASV's bills at least adhere to the standard conventions of English grammar.

[fhtagn]

Arguably, this is a worse bill than anything ASV or Suburban NJ Conservative has put out there.

That's a bit of a dramatic statement and I guarantee you probably already know that.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If this passes, will Dave be summoned before the Southern Circuit Court to stand trial for the banning of Greedo?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If this passes, will Dave be summoned before the Southern Circuit Court to stand trial for the banning of Greedo?

Someone would stand trial yes (and Greedo should be unbanned in any case), would probably be whoever actually pressed the ban button. Idk if that was Muon, Dave, Nym, or Virginia.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Arguably, this is a worse bill than anything ASV or Suburban NJ Conservative has put out there.

That's a bit of a dramatic statement and I guarantee you probably already know that.

IDK about that one the three federalist up and comers hopefully shape up soon!

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Arguably, this is a worse bill than anything ASV or Suburban NJ Conservative has put out there.

That's a bit of a dramatic statement and I guarantee you probably already know that.

IDK about that one the three federalist up and comers hopefully shape up soon!

I was elected to fight for my voters and that is what I am attempting to do. They're being banned and silenced left and right.

What should I do? Just stand their and get voted out of office in july?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Arguably, this is a worse bill than anything ASV or Suburban NJ Conservative has put out there.

That's a bit of a dramatic statement and I guarantee you probably already know that.

IDK about that one the three federalist up and comers hopefully shape up soon!

I was elected to fight for my voters and that is what I am attempting to do. They're being banned and silenced left and right.

What should I do? Just stand their and get voted out of office in july?

They are being banned from a social media platform, who cares. If they want their views spread they should start their own social media platform, easy enough. Nobody is going to vote you out because you don't make a bill defending Alex Jones.

[Leinad]

Don't have much to add because I agree with everything dfw just said (although I was confused because I forgot what party he was in at first lol).

Hopefully the Federal government doesn't act on this, because it's a pretty perverted idea of "free speech" to literally force a platform to accept literal white nationalists and homophobes if they'd rather not. It's literally "reverse censorship," which is kinda funny if you think about it, eh?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

They are being banned from a social media platform, who cares. If they want their views spread they should start their own social media platform, easy enough. Nobody is going to vote you out because you don't make a bill defending Alex Jones.

This is a very ironic response for someone with "LibertyLover" in their name.
liberty=/=free speech now? Maybe you should consider a name change Doof.

First they came for the paranoid water filter salesman
I said nothing for I was not a paranoid water filter salesman

HAVE PEOPLE NOT HEARD OF THE BLOCK BUTTON?

Are they a publisher or a public forum?
Social media is the modern public space.

it's a pretty perverted idea of "free speech" to literally force a platform to accept literal white nationalists and homophobes if they'd rather not.

Surely those ideas should be argued against not swept under the carpet to linger.

The people that are getting deplatformed aren't just these white nationalists and homophobes.
Are you telling me that Paul Joseph Watson is homophobe?
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/742482573910278144
GEE WHAT A MASSIVE HOMOPHOBE!

Surely if they were deplatforming homophobes you'd need to deplatfrom most of the middle east.

Seems like calling someone a fascist, a white nationalist or a homophobe is just the new way to call someone a witch. Regardless of evidence.

________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Speaker I'd like to point out that we have had a seconder to the following motion

The Southern Chamber of Delegates and the Southern Region would like to see the Federal Government take action on defending freedom of speech on the internet.

As such I believe that this should therefore be put to a vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

technically this is a resolution, not an amending of the legislation itself, and probably needs its own thread.
feel free to introduce it in the legislation introduction thread.

[Leinad]

R A M B L I N G   E S S A Y   T I M E ! ! ! !

My point is that it's not like everyone to the right of TNF is being banned from these sites. If Paul Joseph F-ing Watson is your example of the least offensive guy banned because he's merely a douchey crackpot instead of an outright hatemonger it's a pretty clear indication the problem really isn't that bad^[a]. Especially when, once again, there are many other websites people can share their ideas on (he's still on most platforms) and--crucially--it's just as much an affront to our freedoms^[b] to say that websites should be forced to keep everyone on it.

And that's the argument, right? It's a good strategy to make me explain and defend why each and every one of these people were banned, because that would be tiring and I don't necessarily agree with all the bannings, but this idea is not just to reinstate PJW (I personally probably would not have banned him--I guess petition Zuckerberg to bring him back if that really is the main issue), but to reinstate everyone or almost everyone who was banned, right? Which means it's an issue of whether websites have the right to ban people for saying certain things (it's not really a "free speech" issue because they can say anything they want on other sites).

Also I'm curious if any of the people getting upset at the bannings are also the people talking about the alleged right to refuse serving gay customers for religious reasons. Not the exact same issue--in fact I'd argue that's an easier case to argue for legal intervention in that case^[c]--but it's a similar question in a way and, well, I'm just curious.


Footnotes (I'm so sorry for adding footnotes to an Atlas post--really I am, this is self-indulgent even for me--I just didn't want to clutter up my post with my typical rambly asides. But at the same time I still wanted to include the rambly asides. Oh well.):
[a] - compare with America in the good ol' days with blasphemy laws, red scare blacklisting, and guys like Lenny Bruce thrown in jail for comedy acts that used words and topics that are filler words by today's comedians. I don't agree with everything about "modern values" but people are acting like we're on the verge of Orwellian dystopia and, as with sensationalism in any sense, it's just frustrating and a distraction from productive conversations we could have.
[b] - at least under a "pro-business" framework--if it's an affront to "freedom of speech" to limit corporate campaign donations it's nothing different to limit corporate policy on the users of it's own service, right?
[c] - ftr I'm not necessarily saying people can't discriminate if they're crystal clear about their policy to do so, because I know what would happen if they did that lol. And if we are going to have anti-discrimination laws, it should apply to sexuality and gender identity, too. But this is, like, multiple levels off-topic. (Then again I'm not randomly invoking a "but the Middle East" strawman to defend a weird interpretation of the first amendment.) Anyway I doubt too many people will read the footnotes, it's not really worth it.