WELCOME
WELCOME BACK. WELL , SOCIAL MEDIA IS BOUND
TO BE A MAJOR PART OF OUR
COLLECTIVE HISTORY BOTH GOOD
AND BAD. AND OVER THE LAST THREE
DAYS, SOCIAL MEDIA HAS BEEN
A BIG STORY IN ALL MEDIA. LAST
THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, THE MAJOR
PLAYERS FACEBOOK, TWITTER
AND INSTAGRAM ALL PARTED WAYS
WITH THE MAIN ACCOUNT
OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
AND OVER THE WEEKEND GOOGLE,
APPLE AND AMAZON EFFECTIVELY
STOPPED PARLER FROM EXISTING
IN ANY REAL WAY ONLINE. PARLER
IS A SOCIAL NETWORK POPULAR
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
SUPPORTERS AND SOME
CONSERVATIVES. SO WITH ALL
OF THIS ACTION BY BIG TECH
TO SILENCE SOME . MANY
ARE ASKING A QUESTION IS THIS
FAIR? THE FIRST
>> THING THAT IS IMPORTANT
TO NOTE ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA IS
THAT THE PLATFORMS AREN'T TRULY
A TOWN SQUARE. THEY'RE HOSTED
SITES OWNED PRIVATELY.
THAT MATTERS BECAUSE
>> THESE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT APPLY
TO THEM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR
FORMS. AND REMEMBER, THE FIRST
AMENDMENT SAYS CONGRESS SHALL
PASS NO LAW. IT DOESN'T SAY
TWITTER OR FACEBOOK. IT IS
CONGRESS. OUR FREE SPEECH IS
ONLY PROTECTED FROM GOVERNMENT
ENCROACHMENT, NOT FROM PRIVATE
ENCROACHMENTS
ENCROACHMENTS >>. AND JUST LIKE NO SHIRT, NO
SHOES, NO SERVICE. A SITE CAN
REFUSE A USER, A USER ALSO CAN
GET REMOVED IF SHE OR
HE VIOLATES THAT SITE'S
POLICIES. WHERE IT WOULD GET
TRICKY IS IF IT WAS
DISCRIMINATION. AND I ASKED HIM
JOHNSON, A SCHOLAR IN FREE
SPEECH ABOUT THAT WHEN IT CAME
TO THE CASE OF PARLER GETTING
IN ESSENCE DEPLATFORMED
>> COULD PERSON OR COULD
A COMPANY LIKE PARLER SUE
THE APPS STORE
FOR DISCRIMINATION? IT PROBABLY
COULD AND PROBABLY WON'T BE
SUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? THERE
ARE ONLY CERTAIN CLASSES
OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY
THAT WE PROTECT AT A VERY
HIGH LEVEL AND THOSE ARE RACE,
GENDER AND RELIGION.
>> A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IS
NOT A PROTECTED CLASS NOR IS
A POLITICAL PARTY. SO THE BIGGER
QUESTION THEN BECOMES IS IT FAIR
TO BAN THE PRESIDENT ON THESE
SITES? AND IS IT FAIR
TO BASICALLY HANDICAP PARLER OUT
OF EXISTENCE
OF EXISTENCE >>? YOU KNOW, IT MAY NOT BE FAIR
AND WE COULD HAVE THAT DEBATE
UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME IF YOU
WOULD LIKE. BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT
FAIRNESS. IT IS ABOUT A COMPANY
DECIDING TO WHOM IT WOULD LIKE
TO SERVE OR FOR WHOM IT WOULD
LIKE TO SERVE, IF YOU WILL .
AND IT IS REALLY UP TO
THEM WHETHER IT'S ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS OR BOTH TO SAY WHO
CAN BE ON THEIR PLATFORMS OR NOT
>>. ALL OF THESE ACTIONS COME
IN THE FALLOUT OF THE RIOT AT
OUR U.S. CAPITAL LAST WEDNESDAY
WHERE PEOPLE DIED AND MANY
PLACED IN DANGER. THE SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANIES WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT ALL POINT TO POSTS
ON THEIR SITES THAT INCITED
THAT VIOLENCE AS THE REASON
FOR WHAT THEY'VE DONE THIS PAST
WEEKEND AND PARTED WAYS.
AND WHILE IT MAY BE LEGAL
FOR THE COMPANIES TO DO WHAT
THEY DID. AGAIN, THE QUESTION
IS, IS IT FAIR OR
ARE CONSERVATIVES BEING UNFAIRLY
SILENCED AS WAS SUGGESTED? MANY
PLACES TODAY, INCLUDING
THE EDITORIAL PAGE OF THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL PITTING
>> CENSORSHIP VERSUS KEEPING US
SAFE AGAINST ONE ANOTHER.
AND THERE'S REAL GRAY AREA
THERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE ALL
WANT TO BELIEVE THAT WE WANT
TO HAVE FOR A TO BE ABLE TO SAY
ANYTHING WE WANT ANYTIME
WE WANT. BUT THEN THERE'S THIS
OTHER SIDE OF IT THAT SAYS,
WELL , BUT IF YOU'VE GOT THINGS
LIKE HATE SPEECH OR INCITEMENT
OF VIOLENCE
OF VIOLENCE >>, YOU DON'T WANT THAT TO BE
PROTECTED AND THAT GRAY AREA IS
WHERE DO YOU DRAW THAT LINE?
I DON'T THINK YOU OR I OR EVEN
THE SUPREME COURT KNOW WHERE
THE TIPPING POINT IS. HOW MANY
POST YOU NEED BEFORE YOU SAY,
OH, NO, THESE ARE ALL GOING
TO INCITE VIOLENCE? IS IT JUST
THE ONE KNUCKLEHEAD WHO'S WITHIN
THE GROUP? IS IT 10 % OF THE
KNUCKLEHEADS OR IS IT A MAJORITY
OF THEM? WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THAT LINE IS AND THAT'S WHAT
MAKES THIS SUCH DIFFICULT
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION >>. BUT IT IS A DISCUSSION
HAPPENING TODAY AND OVER
THE WEEKEND. AND SPEAKING
OF TODAY, A LAWSUIT WAS FILED
IN FEDERAL COURT BY PARLER
ACCUSING AMAZON OF VIOLATING
ANTEATERS LAW. SO THE COURTS
WILL WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE AT
SOME POINT. AND AS ALWAYS,
WE ARE OPEN HERE ON BTR AND TO
WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY OR WHAT