You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] Vvswiftvv17 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

They are private. The laws need to be changed if we want to hold them accountable. Otherwise they should be free to show whatever they want.

[–] viperguy [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

NO LAW CHANGES NEEDED. There are past US supreme court rulings regarding trespassing political speech on a private property being allowed if the private property is a de facto monopoly of the target listeners ears.

[–] TurdLord5000 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

How would it be a problem to classify them as public utilities?

[–] UsedToBeCujoQuarrel 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They aren't monopolies. Well, I guess they are for idiots who don't know how to use the web but still.

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's the problem -- selectively applied laws. There's one set of laws for the liberal "progressives" and another for nationalists and conservatives.

[–] slwsnowman40 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Marsh v Alabama, 1946.

Nothing really needs to be changed, that precedent needs to be applied to Jewgle, Kikebook etc.

[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Corporations are private, but they are also a privileged class of limited liability, granted by government, and as such they are held to a higher standard of behavior with privileges related to property also equally restricted by government. Property is a legal definition, and there is more than one kind, and it is also defined by government.

In law, government has complete authority and control over corporations - this is an undisputed legal fact - cemented in case histories through the Supreme Court. Trump can halt trading and seize the company any time he pleases with a single sentence from his pen.

There is no need to change any laws. The existing laws are very clear, and Google is deliberately breaking them. It's not like Google doesn't have lawyers. They know what the law says, and they know they are violating that law on purpose. It doesn't matter why. The government has full authority to do whatever it wants to in such cases.

[–] GapingAnus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

a privileged class of limited liability, granted by government,

This really ought to be brought up more. The diffusion of responsibility and limited liability are not intrinsic rights but granted as part of a contract with society. As such, society ought to, and is, able to demand certain things in return.

It's not just a legal argument but a moral one. When you assume privileges, you assume corresponding responsibilities.