As Much Free Speech as You Can Afford
By Guy Hamilton-Smith, July 4, 2023
Attorney Guy Hamilton-Smith helps us ponder what it could mean for people leaving Twitter and flocking to other alternatives such as Meta’s unveiling of Threads.
“…for all the nice things Meta/Mark Zuckerberg have to say about free speech, they have some decidedly anti-free speech policies. In particular, Meta has a policy of prohibiting anyone who has at any point in the past of a sex offense from using their platforms (unless they…can drive a lot of traffic to their platforms).
Packingham v. North Carolina “referred to social media as the modern town square, and singled out Facebook.”
Read this article from Guy Hamilton-Smith, about the competition between Twitter and Meta and what happens when the least popular people are excluded from the public square.
Thank you, Guy, for sharing your thoughts.
Although I knew the answer to this question, I thought it might be entertaining to see what a lawyer would say on Avvo.com. So I posted the following (as a follow-up on an existing thread).
Regarding Avvo topic: Can Facebook legally ban sex offenders although Facebook like a public square.
(following the logic from the lawyers who replied to the post) is that Facebook could decide to ban anyone whose profile mentioned that their favorite color is orange, and this would be perfectly legal? After all, it doesn’t violate federal anti-discrimination law, and it is a private business.
Here is the lawyers hateful response. I say hateful because of the way he begins his reply with the sarcastic “Bingo!”
Bingo! You have correctly interpreted the lawyer response!!
Facebook can ban whoever they want so long as they do not illegally discriminate against a protected class of persons. So to (sic) can any grocery store, pharmacy, barber, shopkeeper or any other merchant.
A sex offender is not a legally protected class of persons.
Does he sound gleeful to you, or is it just me? His tone (to my “ears”) is cat-and-mouse — like a torturer asking if the latest boo-boo hurts.
Here, in turn, is my playful retort:
When almost 72% of U.S. residents use Facebook, and 93% of U.S. Businesses use Facebook, to me it is hard to see how this social media platform is not considered to be a public utility. In fact, 90% of the US population uses social media quite regularly. Since most social media (including dating sites) puposely exclude person forced to register with Sorna, this is tantamount to banishment!
Imagine if persons with a conviction in their past were forbidden from entering McDonalds restaurants! I think the percentages would probably look the same. How is this not government sponsored hate?
(I know. McDonalds is NOT a public utility, but the idea of public, government-sponsored hate expressed through corporate America)
Facebook can ban whomever they like. But tens of millions of Americans should be attacking them on a daily basis. Do what you can to harm them. Help the politicians who hate them. It’s fun.
My problem with the whole stupidity is that any government is allowed to use Facebook. They shouldn’t be using it at all because citizens are prevented from seeing and using their content. THAT should be illegal.
There are places in Amerika where it is illegal for PFRs to enter McDonalds. So there you go.
“BuT tHeY aRe SeX oFfEnDeRs!”
Well said.
That is the entirety of the “thinking” process of the cretins who think Registries should exist. I’m ready to destroy their “rights” in any way that I can and make life harder for them. I watch out for them and I am able to identify them. They deserve consequences.
[moderated]
“A sex offender is not a legally protected class of persons”
That statement makes my brain hurt. The moniker “protected class” is woefully specious at best. Is society really that insecure that it needs someone to look down upon?
Answer this: How in the actual HELL can a tax-paying AMERICAN CITIZEN not be considered a civilian with protected rights against discrimination, harassment and marginalization under the Constitution?
This is the messaging I’m getting whenever I hear “not a protected class: Subclass = deviant subhuman = second class citizen
The only thing I can come up with is that the label “sex offender” normalizes the hate. It’s the “yuck and ick” that people cannot let go of. So it’s much easier to discard and alienate than humanize and accept..
Whether it is Naziism, Jim Crow or sex registry, it is all the same = HATE (sponsored the government).
Centuries ago, the State (Roman Empire) despised and persecuted Christians. The people (most of them) joined in the hatred.
Hate is Hate is Hate; and it is bad enough without the reigning government’s stamp of approval on it!!