You obviously have more faith in publishers than I do. The entire mainstream media is controlled by publishers who parrot the official version of events. Do you prefer your food processed as well?
I was not talking about whether I like or trust publishers. I was talking about the way our Constitution and our system of laws assigns power.
A newspaper publisher, for example, has the power to decide whether his newspaper will ever publish an article about QAnon, or about Black Lives Matter, or about Chinese food.
That is because the publisher owns the newspaper. The freedom of speech rule in the First Amendment only applies to the government. A private publisher does not have to give anyone freedom of speech in the newspaper.
In the same way, FaceBook, or Twitter, or YouTube can stop users from posting content they think is bad or dangerous. The First Amendment does not apply.
Please spare me the "private publisher's rights" argument. The internet was created with taxpayer dollars and the government has an obligation to ensure freedom of expression is not censored.
The US system of publishing has been used for US internet companies since the Arpanet (developed by the US government, as you pointed out) gradually became the Internet on April 30, 1995, when the National Science Foundation turned the whole service over to the world. Each internet company was controlled by the laws of its home country. As in newspaper publishing, the US used the system of private control. There has never been a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press on for private companies, as there is in political speech and publishing, because the First Amendment only specifies what the government cannot do (it cannot censor or control speech and the press), not what a private company can do. The US government has never said, for example, that a newspaper must publish articles by anyone who wants to write. The owner of the newspaper can say which writers get published in the newspaper and which do not. I am not saying the system has to remain that way forever, only that it is that way now.
"There has never been a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press on for private companies". Give me a break! No, there has never been a guarantee of freedom of the press for private companies.. And you think this is a good thing when private companies have a virtual monopoly on the internet?
You obviously have more faith in publishers than I do. The entire mainstream media is controlled by publishers who parrot the official version of events. Do you prefer your food processed as well?
I was not talking about whether I like or trust publishers. I was talking about the way our Constitution and our system of laws assigns power.
A newspaper publisher, for example, has the power to decide whether his newspaper will ever publish an article about QAnon, or about Black Lives Matter, or about Chinese food.
That is because the publisher owns the newspaper. The freedom of speech rule in the First Amendment only applies to the government. A private publisher does not have to give anyone freedom of speech in the newspaper.
In the same way, FaceBook, or Twitter, or YouTube can stop users from posting content they think is bad or dangerous. The First Amendment does not apply.
Please spare me the "private publisher's rights" argument. The internet was created with taxpayer dollars and the government has an obligation to ensure freedom of expression is not censored.
The US system of publishing has been used for US internet companies since the Arpanet (developed by the US government, as you pointed out) gradually became the Internet on April 30, 1995, when the National Science Foundation turned the whole service over to the world. Each internet company was controlled by the laws of its home country. As in newspaper publishing, the US used the system of private control. There has never been a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press on for private companies, as there is in political speech and publishing, because the First Amendment only specifies what the government cannot do (it cannot censor or control speech and the press), not what a private company can do. The US government has never said, for example, that a newspaper must publish articles by anyone who wants to write. The owner of the newspaper can say which writers get published in the newspaper and which do not. I am not saying the system has to remain that way forever, only that it is that way now.
"There has never been a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press on for private companies". Give me a break! No, there has never been a guarantee of freedom of the press for private companies.. And you think this is a good thing when private companies have a virtual monopoly on the internet?
I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing. I was just trying to explain how it works at the present time.