.
. THIS
. THIS IS
. THIS IS A LIVE LOOK AT THE US CAPITOL BUILDING RIGHT NOW.
LAWMAKERS ARE WORKING ON
REMOVING THE PRESIDENT AFTER
LAST WEEK'S RIOTS.
MANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
HAVE ALREADY REMOVED
THE PRESIDENT.
OUR NBCNEWS LEGAL EXPERT AT
METRO STATE UNIVERSITY
PROFESSOR WHITNEY TRAYLOR IS
JOINING US NOW.
AND WHITNEY METI, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE CLAIMING
TWITTER SUSPENSION OF HIS
ACCOUNT VIOLATES HIS FREE
SPEECH.
DOES IT?
GOOD MORNING, COREY.
NO WORD HE DOES NOT.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ACTUALLY
SAYS THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T LIMIT
OUR SPEECH.
IT DOESN'T SAY PRIVATE
COMPANIES CAN LIMIT SPEECH.
COURTS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT
THAT THEY RULE FIRST AMENDMENT
APPLIES TO ADDRESSES GOVERNMENT
ACTIONS.
IT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE
COMPANIES.
MOREOVER, UNDER
THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT,
COMPANIES ACTUALLY CAN RESTRICT
OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND EVEN
MORE IMPORTANTLY POSSIBLY IS
THAT ON SOCIAL MEDIA YOU
ACTUALLY AGREE TO THOSE TERMS
OF SERVICE.
THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU THEY'RE
GOING TO RESTRICT YOUR SPEECH.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, FACEBOOK
REMOVES HATE SPEECH.
IT SAYS IT DOES NOT ALLOW
ORGANIZATIONS OR PEOPLE TO USE
FACEBOOK IF THEY'RE DEDICATED
TO PROMOTING HATRED AGAINST
CERTAIN PROTECTED GROUPS.
SO THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO RESTRICT YOUR
SPEECH NOW HAD THE GOVERNMENT
INSTRUCT CONGRESS INSTRUCTED
TWITTER TO DROP MR TRUMP'S
ACCOUNT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A
VIOLATION OF HIS FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
BUT A PRIVATE COMPANY NO, THERE
IS NO FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
.
SO WHEN THE COURT HAS
PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP COULD NOT BLOCK TWITTER
FOLLOWERS WHO DISAGREED WITH
HIM, IS THAT A DOUBLE STANDARD?
THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
THE FOLKS OUT ON ONLINE TODAY
ASSERTING THAT ARGUMENT A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO PRESIDENT
TRUMP BLOCKED A COUPLE
OF TWITTER FOLLOWERS WHO
DISAGREED WITH HIM.
THEY ULTIMATELY SUED HIM.
THE CASE WAS NIGHT FIRST
AMENDMENT INSTITUTE VERSUS
TRUMP AND THEY SAID NO,
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT
ALLOW PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO USE
SOCIAL MEDIA FOR ALL MANNER
OF OFFICIAL PURPOSES TO
ACTUALLY EXCLUDE PERSONS FROM
AN OTHERWISE OPEN DIALOG JUST
BECAUSE THEY DESCENDED.
AND SO HERE THE DIFFERENCE IS,
IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
USING TWITTER AS OFFICIAL
COMMUNICATION.
IN FACT THERE IT'S GOING TO BE
ARCHIVED AS OFFICIAL
COMMUNICATION.
SO IN THAT REGARD IT WAS
THE GOVERNMENT ACTING
THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING IN HIS
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY.
SO NO, HE CAN'T REMOVE PEOPLE
BECAUSE UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT THE FOUNDERS SAID
LOOK, DISSENTION IS
THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY,
THE ABILITY FOR MINORITY GROUPS
TO DISSENT OR ANYONE TO DISSENT
IS REALLY A BEDROCK
OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM
OF SPEECH WHEN THIS IS A REALLY
INTERESTING NEXT QUESTION FOR
YOU.
SO APPLE IS REMOVING THE APP
PARLER FROM ITS STORES SAYING
IT'S HOME TO VIOLENT THREATS,
CALLS FOR LEGAL ACTIVITY.
IS THIS A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS
AT ALL?
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A
VIOLATION CERTAINLY NOT OF ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BECAUSE
AGAIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE
COMPANIES.
APPLE CLAIMS THAT THEY REMOVED
PARLER BECAUSE OF THREATS
OF VIOLENCE TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
AND SO THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT
PARLER IS NOT MODERATING AND
REMOVING CONTENT THAT ACTUALLY
ENCOURAGES ILLEGAL ACTIVITY
WHICH IS AS APPLE CLAIMS
DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION
OF PARLOR'S TERMS OF SERVICE
AND APPLE'S DEVELOPER
AGREEMENTS.
SO REALLY THE APPLE PARLER
ISSUE IS MORE HONESTLY OF A
CONTRACT ISSUE.
DID APPLE VIOLATE PARLOR'S
CONTRACT RIGHTS AND I DON'T
BELIEVE SO AT ALL BECAUSE THEY
HAVE THESE STANDARDS THAT
THEY'RE ALLOWED TO APPLY AND
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT APPLE
SAID IS THAT HEY, PARLER IS
VIOLATING BOTH ITS AGREEMENT
AND THE AGREEMENT IT HAS WITH
US .
SO THEY THEY BLOCKED IT.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE A
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BUT
I CERTAINLY COULD ANTICIPATE
SIGNIFICANT LITIGATION OVER
THE NEXT FEW YEARS AROUND ALL
OF THIS.
I MEAN THIS REALLY HIGHLIGHTS
THE ISSUE AROUND SOCIAL MEDIA
BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A HUGE
PLATFORM FOR COMMUNICATION.
MANY PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE AISLE ARE SAYING THAT
THESE LARGE COMPANIES THAT
PROVIDE THESE PLATFORMS TO
REACH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SHOULD
BE REGULATED IN A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
SO I SUSPECT THESE ISSUES WILL
DEFINITELY THERE'LL BE
LEGISLATION REGARDING SPEECH
AND SOCIAL MEDIA AND THINGS
LIKE THAT GOING FORWARD.
BUT RIGHT NOW THESE COMPANIES
CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
BLOCK THE PRESIDENT AND THEY
HAVE THE RIGHT TO BLOCK PARLER
.
YEAH, IT'S REALLY INTERESTING.
I'M SAYING SO MUCH CHATTER
ABOUT PARLER RIGHT NOW ON
SOCIAL MEDIA SO I'M GLAD WE
COVERED THAT.
WHITNEY, AS