Protecting 1A, before it's too late.

Something particularly concerning to me is the shuttering of conservative voices as of late. If we do not protect 1A, and make the effort to protect it, there will be no "other" voices left to speak freely.

I do want to be clear, however, that I vastly disagree with many of the voices that were "deplatformed." I do not agree with or condone a lot of their views. I still, nevertheless, see the danger in silencing them completely, which is where my concern lies.

The ACLU or an existing organization would ideally be, in my view, better suited than something grass roots. Unfortunately, due to a lack of balls, the ACLU does not seem take issue with FCC section 230's gross abuse by social media companies operating in this gray area. This is ripe to be addressed, and Trump attempted to do so.

Heading this up is not my preference, but it has to be done. There is risk involved to me personally in doing so. I do not think I'm the best person to head this up, or even the ideal person. However, it's better someone proposes and pushes this ball forward. The hardest part is always getting started. To me, it seems many ideas stall out in the proposal stage because of a lack of pressure pushing the cause forward, and it is for this reason I'm willing to step up and help organize this.

I'm proposing we form some sort of organization (a PAC?) after having a deep discussion on the following topics:

• Are social media companies publishers? If so, they should be liable for all content. If not, they should be unable to censor speech. They operate in a legally gray area currently.
  • By classifying them as a publisher, all speech will be silenced due to liability.
  • By removing censorship, it also means the government needs to step in and regulate -- but only according to the SCOTUS definitions. (IE, no child porn, no direct incitements to violence, but hate speech is still passable.)
• Political affiliation and protected classes. Is it to our advantage to advocate for political affiliation being a protected class? At first glance, it seems to be the case. Otherwise, we may never see the end to back and forth reprisals for political beliefs.
  • By making it a forced protected class it means the "baker" would be forced to make the cake.
  • By protecting political affiliation, it means conservatives can't be discriminated against in job interviews and other areas where liberals may try to shut them out unfairly. At least, publicly. It doesn't mean privately that such a reason will be disclosed, or hidden behind another reason unfortunately.

My goal here is to fight for a country in which we can openly disagree, but reprisals are something we forbid. If we don't move into a world where "healthy" disagreement is both encouraged and demanded (the intent of 1A originally) then I believe our country's future will be pre-destined.

Anyone who wants to help out would be great, although people with legal, financial, or technical (IT / Big Tech) experience would be especially helpful in getting things bootstrapped. I'm open to other organizational formations other than a 527 (PAC) as well, if anyone with more financial or legal experience wants to step in and advise.

If we rest and do nothing, then we are wholly to blame for the current state of affairs.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stewart Mill

Click to expand...

Robin said:

Obviously you have no Idea what the ACLU is and what their end game is.
Robin

Click to expand...

I know what their goal should be. I also know they're failing at it.

Saltwater60 said:

There’s not much we can do is there? If all these platforms refuse to hold anything we have our voice on?
This is the true total control dictatorship. They want to re-educate us, silence us, flood the country with illegal immigrants. It’s over. Truly it’s over. There’s nothing we can do. If anyone has ideas let me know but I’m honestly thinking when I retire I may flee the country. Granted I have 20+ years before that happens but I don’t really see another way.

Click to expand...

Did you read the OP?

Darth said:

Hard pass.

I've heard every twisted, bend backwards, tie yourself into knots argument as to why a private company should not be allowed to control what they want on their own property and I've yet to hear anything beyond whining. Whining that would all of a sudden stop if the platforms were reversed.

I stand by my principles even when I don't like the outcome.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they cannot control the content on their site. Read the OP.

I said I feel they should either have to be a publisher, or protected under FCC 230. Either they admit they perform editorial via censorship, or they find the liability too great and allow for the wild west of speech.

The choice is theirs.

spat said:

You are mistaking their stated goal from their actual goal.

They are seldom the same thing.

They are succeeded at their actual goal.

Click to expand...

You're getting off topic. The topic is whether anyone has enough balls to stand up and put in the time and effort around here towards changing anything. Less talk, and more action. There are concrete political actions we can take to fight for protecting our right to free speech.