Barack Obama: First Amendment ‘Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,698
Barack Obama: First Amendment ‘Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter

Barack Obama Calls for More Censorship: First Amendment ‘Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter’

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...st-amendment-does-not-apply-facebook-twitter/

CHARLIE SPIERING 21 Apr 2022

Former President Barack Obama in a major speech on Thursday called for more regulation of social media content, in order to diminish “disinformation.”

The former president delivered a speech on the issue at Stanford University after spending months studying the subject.

He described himself as “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” but immediately clarified that it did not apply to social media companies.

“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook and Twitter,” he said, calling for more “value judgements” on content moderation and censorship on social media.

“While content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough,” Obama added.

The former president complained that current content models for social media platforms allowed all content to flow equally.

“[O]ver time we lose our capacity to distinguish between fact, opinion, and wholesale fiction. Or maybe we just stop caring,” he said.

Obama also complained that an overwhelming flood of information made it difficult to discern the truth.

“Our brains aren’t accustomed to taking in this much information this fast, and a lot of us are experiencing overload,” he said.

Obama warned that dangerous people were using social media to distract the public.

“People like Putin and Steve Bannon for that matter understand it’s not necessary for people to believe disinformation in order to weaken democratic institutions, you just have to flood the public square with enough raw sewage,” he complained.

The former president argued for a series of social media reforms and regulation, warning the nature of democracy itself was at stake.

He complained there was no way to distinguish online between “a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Anthony Fauci and a miracle cure pitched by a huckster.”

The wide variety of content on the coronavirus and vaccines, Obama said, was concerning, as some people chose not to get vaccinated.

“People are dying because of misinformation,” he said.

Obama noted that content moderation by tech companies already exists, but argued for more moderation, even though disinformation is difficult to identify.

“That doesn’t mean some things aren’t truer than others. Or that we can’t draw lines between opinions, facts, honest mistakes, intentional deceptions,” he said.

The former president laid out a set of principles of how content should be moderated, either by tech companies themselves or by a government entity:

Whether it strengthens or weakens the prospects for a healthy inclusive democracy.

Whether it encourages robust debate and respect for our differences.

Whether it reinforces rule of law and self-governance.

Whether it helps us make collective decisions based on the best available information.

Whether it recognizes the rights and freedoms and dignity of all of our citizens.

“Regulation has to be part of the answer,” Obama said, calling for ways to start “slowing the spread of harmful content” online.

Obama expressed regret that he believed, prior to the 2016 election, that the public could still distinguish fact from fiction on social media, even though he suffered personally and politically from disinformation.

“What does still nag at me was my failure to fully appreciate at the time just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy theories,” he said.

The president cited the principles in the “Fairness Doctrine,” widely criticized by the conservative movement, to help control what kind of information was allowed in broadcasting. He also called for social media algorithms to be regulated by government inspectors and regulators, just like other industries.

Obama recalled what he described as the happier days of the internet, when he was first elected president. “In the early days of the internet and social media, there was a certain joy of finding new ways to connect and organize … there was so much promise,” he said. “I know — I was there.”

Obama expressed sadness that the internet and socialism has had “a grimness to it” since he left office, and called for change.

“We have a choice right now: Do we allow our democracy to wither? Or do we make it better?” he said.
 
Does facebook receive taxpayer dollars? If so they don't have the right to censor it's users. Same goes for twatter.
 
“People are dying because of misinformation,” he said.

There's not way around this... More people have died from government misinformation than have EVER died from any other misinformation. And this moron wants to ensure that government misinformation can go unchallenged.

He was always a street hustler. The best the world has ever seen - but a hustler nonetheless.
 
“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook and Twitter,” he said, calling for more “value judgements” on content moderation and censorship on social media.

....

“Regulation has to be part of the answer,” Obama said, calling for ways to start “slowing the spread of harmful content” online.

Uhhhh.
 
So much for Obama being a free speech warrior, even though his whole career shows how much he hates it.
 
Obama expressed regret that he believed, prior to the 2016 election, that the public could still distinguish fact from fiction on social media, even though he suffered personally and politically from disinformation.

What he regrets is that 2016 was the sharpest inflection point in the self-immolation of whatever shreds of trust and authoritativeness remained to the Cathedral's public relations department (i.e., the corporate media).
 
The former president laid out a set of principles of how content should be moderated, either by tech companies themselves or by a government entity:

What "set of principles" were "laid out" here?

All Obama did was make hand-waving references to some vague "happy talk" words and concepts.

Whether it strengthens or weakens the prospects for a healthy inclusive democracy.

Strengthen? Weaken? Healthy? Inclusive? Democracy?

According to whom, and by what standard?

Whether it encourages robust debate and respect for our differences.

Robust debate?[1] Respect?

According to whom, and by what standard?

Whether it reinforces rule of law and self-governance.

Reinforce? Rule of law? Self-governance?

According to whom, and by what standard?

Whether it helps us make collective decisions based on the best available information.

Helps? Best?

According to whom, and by what standard?

Whether it recognizes the rights and freedoms and dignity of all of our citizens.

Rights? Freedoms? Dignity? Citizens?

According to whom, and by what standard?

Of course, the question "According to whom, and by what standard?" is entirely rhetorical.

The obvious answer is "According to Obama, et al., and by whatever standard is most politically advantageous for them at any given moment."



[1] This one is especially grotesque. So-called "debate" constrained to within politically-motivated limitations cannot ever be "robust" in any significant sense, and it is dubious whether contention between any one allowable and officially approved position and any other could even meaningfully be described as a "debate" at all. (For example, consider what manner and range of "debate" regarding, say, U.S. involvement and intervention in the present Ukraine situation would likely be permitted under Obama's ostensibly "anti-misinformation" regime of discourse.)
 
Mr. Obama, when you tweeted the following anti-mask tweet, should it have been censored as misinformation that was going to cost lives?
 
Mr. Obama, when you tweeted the following anti-mask tweet, should it have been censored as misinformation that was going to cost lives?

Of course not!

File under "Best Available Information":

Whether it helps us make collective decisions based on the best available information.

(Keep in mind that "best available" is a fluid state that can and will change from one moment to the next according to political expedience.)
 
He described himself as “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” but immediately clarified that it did not apply to social media companies.

“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook and Twitter,” he said, calling for more “value judgements” on content moderation and censorship on social media.

“While content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough,” Obama added.
...
The former president argued for a series of social media reforms and regulation, warning the nature of democracy itself was at stake.

Translation: The Bill of Rights does not apply to private companies, therefore the government can censor speech and violate the Bill of Rights via public-private partnerships.


This tyranny salesman believes that people are not smart enough to see through his bullsh!t.
 
The answer to this is simple. Corporations are not people and should have not rights. The fiction of corporate person and giving property rights to government created entities in the name of "capitalism" which corporations have nothing to do with free market capitalism IS THE PROBLEM! Government has created some tools to deal with abuses of coportism and especially corportism combined with government influence. One is antitrust law. The other is 42 U.S.C. 1983. Facebook, Twitter and Google have violated both laws. It's not "anti liberty" to call them on it in court.

Barack Obama Calls for More Censorship: First Amendment ‘Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter’

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...st-amendment-does-not-apply-facebook-twitter/

CHARLIE SPIERING 21 Apr 2022

Former President Barack Obama in a major speech on Thursday called for more regulation of social media content, in order to diminish “disinformation.”

The former president delivered a speech on the issue at Stanford University after spending months studying the subject.

He described himself as “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” but immediately clarified that it did not apply to social media companies.

“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook and Twitter,” he said, calling for more “value judgements” on content moderation and censorship on social media.

“While content moderation can limit the distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough,” Obama added.

The former president complained that current content models for social media platforms allowed all content to flow equally.

“[O]ver time we lose our capacity to distinguish between fact, opinion, and wholesale fiction. Or maybe we just stop caring,” he said.

Obama also complained that an overwhelming flood of information made it difficult to discern the truth.

“Our brains aren’t accustomed to taking in this much information this fast, and a lot of us are experiencing overload,” he said.

Obama warned that dangerous people were using social media to distract the public.

“People like Putin and Steve Bannon for that matter understand it’s not necessary for people to believe disinformation in order to weaken democratic institutions, you just have to flood the public square with enough raw sewage,” he complained.

The former president argued for a series of social media reforms and regulation, warning the nature of democracy itself was at stake.

He complained there was no way to distinguish online between “a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Anthony Fauci and a miracle cure pitched by a huckster.”

The wide variety of content on the coronavirus and vaccines, Obama said, was concerning, as some people chose not to get vaccinated.

“People are dying because of misinformation,” he said.

Obama noted that content moderation by tech companies already exists, but argued for more moderation, even though disinformation is difficult to identify.

“That doesn’t mean some things aren’t truer than others. Or that we can’t draw lines between opinions, facts, honest mistakes, intentional deceptions,” he said.

The former president laid out a set of principles of how content should be moderated, either by tech companies themselves or by a government entity:

Whether it strengthens or weakens the prospects for a healthy inclusive democracy.

Whether it encourages robust debate and respect for our differences.

Whether it reinforces rule of law and self-governance.

Whether it helps us make collective decisions based on the best available information.

Whether it recognizes the rights and freedoms and dignity of all of our citizens.

“Regulation has to be part of the answer,” Obama said, calling for ways to start “slowing the spread of harmful content” online.

Obama expressed regret that he believed, prior to the 2016 election, that the public could still distinguish fact from fiction on social media, even though he suffered personally and politically from disinformation.

“What does still nag at me was my failure to fully appreciate at the time just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy theories,” he said.

The president cited the principles in the “Fairness Doctrine,” widely criticized by the conservative movement, to help control what kind of information was allowed in broadcasting. He also called for social media algorithms to be regulated by government inspectors and regulators, just like other industries.

Obama recalled what he described as the happier days of the internet, when he was first elected president. “In the early days of the internet and social media, there was a certain joy of finding new ways to connect and organize … there was so much promise,” he said. “I know — I was there.”

Obama expressed sadness that the internet and socialism has had “a grimness to it” since he left office, and called for change.

“We have a choice right now: Do we allow our democracy to wither? Or do we make it better?” he said.
 
Translation: The Bill of Rights does not apply to private companies, therefore the government can censor speech and violate the Bill of Rights via public-private partnerships.


This tyranny salesman believes that people are not smart enough to see through his bullsh!t.

Private prisons can be sued as state actors under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/new...ys-private-prisons-liable-under-section-1983/

There's no reason why Facebook can't be sued based on the Fauci emails. But you only have a year. Anybody here been kicked off Facebook for spreading COVID "disinformation?" You can't have a lawsuit without a plaintiff.
 
The answer to this is simple. Corporations are not people and should have not rights. The fiction of corporate person and giving property rights to government created entities in the name of "capitalism" which corporations have nothing to do with free market capitalism IS THE PROBLEM! Government has created some tools to deal with abuses of coportism and especially corportism combined with government influence. One is antitrust law. The other is 42 U.S.C. 1983. Facebook, Twitter and Google have violated both laws. It's not "anti liberty" to call them on it in court.

I agree.

The question I have is: how do you get the DOJ to start court proceedings against them if they are politically motivated not to?

Serious question...how do you start the process?
 
Obama Calls For MORE Censorship On Social Media As Elon Musk Forms Companies To Take Over Twitter
https://rumble.com/v11y3g2-obama-ca...social-media-as-elon-musk-forms-companie.html
 
I agree.

The question I have is: how do you get the DOJ to start court proceedings against them if they are politically motivated not to?

Serious question...how do you start the process?

Screw the DOJ! Antitrust, RICO and 42 U.S.C. 1983 all have private rights of actions.

Is being kicked off, by itself, prima facie evidence of abuse and standing?

Can you tie it into the Fauci / Zuckerberg emails? If so then the answer is yes.

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/...eports-to-help-with-lockdowns-and-covid-jabs/

The statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on these emails is 1 year so it will run out December 2022. I'm not sure what the SOL is for RICO or the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Edit: I realize I didn't give enough detail. Hear ya go on how to start the process.

1) Find plaintiff or plaintiffs that were damaged by being censored on Facebook, YouTube and/or Twitter over COVID "misinformation."

2) Read each of the laws that I mentioned so that you know how to tie the facts to the elements.

3) Find a lawyer willing to take the case. (Sorry but I can't at the moment. Personal reasons. Situation may be different later but time is of the essence).

4) Get your lawyer to draft a complaint.

5) Get some other lawyers to look over the complaint and make sure it will survive a motion to dismiss...cause it's coming.

6) File a lawsuit in federal district court.

7) Serve Fauci, Zuckerberg, Twitter and Google.

That's it.

Standard disclaimer. Nothing I say on this forum constitutes legal advice. This is just given for informational and first amendment purposes. As I said, you need a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Does facebook receive taxpayer dollars? If so they don't have the right to censor it's users. Same goes for twatter.

Sure do. In-Q-Tel was funded by the government to give public funds to companies like Facebook and Google.

The US Govt is also the biggest paying customer of both Facebook and Google who pay them for data on people.
 
npc-censorship.jpg
 
Back
Top