Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the quick-to-censor dept.

We have heard the rumblings, now it comes.... the Code of Conduct for social media along with the banhammer.

From Bloomberg we get this warning:

U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.

Of course terrorists are defined down to "unambiguous hate speech that they said promoted racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism" before the short article ends.

Buckle up folks, the ride is is about to get bumpy.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:53AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:53AM (#353866) Journal

    Your comment reminds me of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980):

    The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the center is privately owned, and that such result does not infringe appellants' property rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/447/74 [cornell.edu]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @12:18PM (#354015)

    Yes, California is the one state in the union where shopping malls do not have 100% control over the speech on their own property.