U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Apple for Info on Alleged Free Speech Suppression

[DaveN]

1. The first amendment is about GOVERNMENT limiting free speech. It does not apply to private companies. If it does, how about a subpoena for *Truth* Social?

2. To the uninformed here, there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. If a person or persons call for the extermination of a group of people that is hate speech. Case in point, pre-WWII Germany.

 

[BenGoren]

Something else is bothering me.

You can make an argument — a very bad, poorly-reasoned, and unsupportable argument, to be sure, but an argument nonetheless — that a platform such as Twitter is a de-facto public space and so higher standards of freedom of speech must apply.

But how on Earth does Apple fit into any of this? Apple isn’t a social media company; all their communication platforms are person-to-person. You can send all the emails you want to your friends and family ranting about the latest whatever, and Apple won’t stop you. It’s not like they’re YouTube taking down your FaceTime call with your crazy uncle.

Apparently it’s too much to ask of the current House majority to even make arguments that are coherent. Then again, just look at their behavior in the State of the Union speech, or during the Speaker selection process, or when answering questions of reporters about your dog charity, or …

b&

 

[siddavis]

1. The first amendment is about GOVERNMENT limiting free speech. It does not apply to private companies. If it does, how about a subpoena for *Truth* Social?

It applies to the government subverting the 1st by compelling private companies to do their dirty work.

 

[sw1tcher]

he

this exactly - what republicans get a little bit of power what do they do N O T H I N G. Hunters Laptop, this crap etc... and HOW is this going to help every American

It's because they won control of the House and they think that gives them the mandate to waste time and taxpayer money on a bunch of dumb investigations.

 

[BenGoren]

Hold the presses! I just figured out the correct headline:

In blatant shakedown attempt, Jim Jordan calls on Big Tech to direct more lobbying money to his reelection campaign.

b&

 

[StellarVixen]

What'd I miss? You stated there's no difference, and then juxtaposed free speech and violence.

I don’t know what did you miss, the whole point of my post was that hate speech is free speech under the 1st as long as it’s speech only.

 

[siddavis]

It's because they won control of the House and they think that gives them the mandate to waste time and taxpayer money on a bunch of dumb investigations.

There have been like, you know, zero investigations in the last 6 years. Wait...

 

[DaveN]

It applies to the government subverting the 1st by compelling private companies to do their dirty work.

You mean like how Diaper Don as POTUS contacted Twitter to have tweets taken down because he didn’t like them. So why no Twitter subpoena?

 

[sw1tcher]

Something else is bothering me.

You can make an argument — a very bad, poorly-reasoned, and unsupportable argument, to be sure, but an argument nonetheless — that a platform such as Twitter is a de-facto public space and so higher standards of freedom of speech must apply.

But how on Earth does Apple fit into any of this? Apple isn’t a social media company; all their communication platforms are person-to-person. You can send all the emails you want to your friends and family ranting about the latest whatever, and Apple won’t stop you. It’s not like they’re YouTube taking down your FaceTime call with your crazy uncle.

I think it has to do with Apple having total control over their App Store and distribution of apps for iOS.

Apple removed the Parler app from their App Store in early 2021. A lot of people on the right complained about that as they felt Apple was trying to silence their voices.

Apple Threatens to Ban Parler From App Store as Twitter Bans Donald Trump

Apple has given conservative social network Parler 24 hours to implement a full moderation plan and remove objectionable content or face a permanent...

www.macrumors.com

Apple Removes Parler From App Store Due to 'Inadequate' Measures to Address Dangerous Content

Apple today confirmed that it has chosen to suspend Parler from the App Store, stating that the self-described "non-biased, free speech social...

www.macrumors.com

 

[DaveN]

Hmmm, so much for working on things like fixing inflation and lowering healthcare costs.

 

[siddavis]

I don’t know what did you miss, the whole point of my post was that hate speech is free speech under the 1st as long as it’s speech only.

If you hurt his feelings, he wants to be able to put you in prison.
It's in the Geneva Convention!!

 

[DaveN]

I think it has to do with Apple having total control over their App Store and distribution of apps for iOS.

Apple removed the Parler app from their App Store in early 2021. A lot of people on the right complained about that.

Apple Threatens to Ban Parler From App Store as Twitter Bans Donald Trump

Apple has given conservative social network Parler 24 hours to implement a full moderation plan and remove objectionable content or face a permanent...

www.macrumors.com

Apple Removes Parler From App Store Due to 'Inadequate' Measures to Address Dangerous Content

Apple today confirmed that it has chosen to suspend Parler from the App Store, stating that the self-described "non-biased, free speech social...

www.macrumors.com

Because Parler didn’t comply with the terms of the App Store. By the way, how is that a government suppression of free speech issue?

 

[Juicy Box]

Someone needs to inform Jordan that as a PRIVATE COMPANY Twitter can ban, delete and censor at will and his rights to free speech aren't being violated

True, and it is perfectly legal for them to do so, but the problem is when Twitter and others start doing those things when the government starts suggesting them to do so.

 

[siddavis]

You mean like how Diaper Don as POTUS contacted Twitter to have tweets taken down because he didn’t like them. So why no Twitter subpoena?

Yes, I mean like that.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

“U.S. House Judiciary Committee Republicans plan to investigate whether the federal government "colluded" with tech companies to ‘suppress free speech’ on issues like COVID-19.”

I think we’re all agreed that, for example, there is no legal right to promote actual snake oil as a cure for cancer, no?

Then there also is no legal right to promote either Ivermectin nor bleach injections as a cure for human viral respiratory infections.

The scary part is that people so woefully ignorant of basic physiology have positions of power within our government. I don’t know what the cure is for that kind of stupid when it infects society to such an extent.

b&

Vitamins, such as Vitamin C, D, Zinc, and others, haven't been verified by the FDA to promote health. Telling someone to take Vitamin C, D, and Zinc to help keep covid and other cold viruses at bay is as effective, per the FDA, as drinking snake oil.

To what you said, there's no right to promote Ivermectin, but there's also no legal right to prevent its promotion for it, which was happening all over the place.

If I remember correctly, the specifics of taking Ivermectin were that you needed to take it as a preventative before getting covid, or before the symptoms appeared, or something like that. I haven't seen any study on that aspect of taking Ivermectin, to prove that it didn't help (or that it hurt). So while I'm not about to get on my soap box and proclaim that Ivermectin is the second coming, if someone wants to, they should be allowed to, and there was definitely collusion against it.

I don't know if people remember, but in the beginning, masks were bad and you shouldn't wear them. Then we had to wear them for over a year. Now, evidence suggests that wearing them didn't actually help. Good science means rolling with the punches, accepting that a consensus changes when we discover new evidence, and dissecting novel ideas to see if they improve our understanding. Unfortunately, the scientific community has a habit of vilifying anyone who suggests science that goes against the prevailing theories: Galileo and Copernicus immediately come to mind.

 

[PauloSera]

Ahh, conservatives flailing around and trying to look relevant. Is there really anything quite so hilariously sad?

Yes. There is. People pretending that these are "conservative" ideas and not merely the common thought processes of nearly all real people.

 

[msackey]

What is that difference?

I think in the European Union and in Canada, there is a difference between freedom of expression and hate speech. See: https://cjc.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/eNACT_Handbook_Freedom-of-expression-compresso.pdf. Citing from this EU source:

"The freedom of expression of each citizen and of the media plays a fundamental role in society. It is considered one of the pillars of a democratic society and an essential precondition for ensuring the protection of individuals’ other human rights.1 As a matter of fact, the freedom of every citizen to freely express his or her ideas nourishes a dialogue that in the end serves not only the individual but also society as a whole."

"Although freedom of expression enjoys a wide protection as a fundamental right, not all forms of expression are protected. As mentioned above, limitations may be applied according to specific conditions and in cases of specific content such as “expressions which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance.”38 In such cases, expression by an individual may fall in the category of hate speech."

I think something similar occurs for Canada.

I find in the United States that "free speech" is popularly understood to equal if not almost equal to the idea that anything goes and anyone can just blabber whatever they want.

To me, that's not free speech.

We have to recognize that speech can cause severe harm. In any case, "free speech" in the United States is not really "anything goes" because the US does have the concept of slander and libel. However, I don't think the US has yet to limit freedom of expression by de-limiting what is hate speech and how that is not acceptable.

 

[siddavis]

Hmmm, so much for working on things like fixing inflation and lowering healthcare costs.

They were not given to opportunity to have a say in this budget cycle because the cronies passed the omnibus monstrosity. Why doesn't THAT fix it?

 

[neuropsychguy]

I don’t know what did you miss, the whole point of my post was that hate speech is free speech under the 1st as long as it’s speech only.

All tigers are cats but not all cats are tigers. Hate speech (tigers) is a class of free speech (cats; although a better term is protected speech) but there is free speech that is not hate speech. Saying there is no difference between the two isn't particularly accurate.

 

[surfzen21]

It applies to the government subverting the 1st by compelling private companies to do their dirty work.

I think the important part of your statement is the "compelling" part. Now if the government infringed on a business interest and compelled it to do something under threat of prosecution that would be a violation. None of that is alleged.

A government agency asking for something to be removed and citing the TOS of the company is not a violation as long as it wasn't intertwined with a threat of governmental enforcement.

I think its clear both if not all political parties within government have made these requests to social media platforms.

 

[sw1tcher]

Waiting for House Judiciary Committee to subpoena Trump and Truth Social. They need to look into how Truth Social silences voices

Truth Social already censoring content, bans user who made fun of Trump Media CEO

The @DevinNunesCow strikes again!

mashable.com

Study Says Trump’s Truth Social Is Much More Aggressive, And Much More Arbitrary, In Moderating Content

As you’ll recall, the defining moment that lead to Donald Trump creating his Truth Social Twitter clone was his being banned from Twitter for potentially egging on further violence on January…

www.techdirt.com

Trump's purported free-speech social-media platform, Truth Social, is hiding user posts, threatening to create a curated 'echo chamber,' research group finds

A report from Public Citizen found that Truth Social "shadow banned" posts about the House January 6 committee hearings and about abortion.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[sir1963nz]

What is that difference?

Who you vote for.

 

[BenGoren]

I think it has to do with Apple having total control over their App Store and distribution of apps for iOS.

By that logic, the failure of your grocery store to stock Playboy with the other magazines in the checkout aisle is a violation of free speech. Or, for that matter, so is Apple’s decision not to stock some random third-party iPhone cable in their brick-and-mortar stores.

Do they really expect people to buy that argument? I think my “shakedown attempt” analogy is much more obvious, even to the Republican base.

b&

 

[erikkfi]

Big tech companies cannot suppress free speech in the Constitutional sense because they are not government entities.

 

[Realityck]

U.S. House Judiciary Committee Republicans plan to investigate whether the federal government "colluded" with tech companies to "suppress free speech" on issues like COVID-19. Republican lawmakers have long suggested that social networks and tech companies engage in anti-conservative bias by suppressing conservative voices.

Another witch hunt wasting tax payers money.