Haven't we learned anything? Once again globalist interests are back in the spotlight trying to back door foreign governments seeking to control and suppress our freedom of speech and expression, and many big companies in both the game industry and internet whose very existence to become the giants they are today was already fought for and won. Now they are engaged in participating directly and indirectly in the same actions and polices that would have prevented them from getting to where they are now. It’s all back in the courts yet again as of 2023. As to a little history behind this where it was first pushed as a combination of Communications Decency and Child Online Protection which are themselves not.
Freedom of Speech: In ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) v. Reno, the Supreme Court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by broadly banning "indecent" speech. Since then, Congress has passed numerous versions of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a federal law that would criminalize constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. Each time the law has been challenged by the ACLU and declared unconstitutional.
Freedom of Expression: In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association & Entertainment Software Association (2011), The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that video games are protected speech and expression, and that any efforts to limit or ban video game content violated the First Amendment.
Major Area of Concern: Several things are being used now to block and vilate these rulings and our United States of America Constitution. Such include the ATA (Anti-Terrorist Act) and several others. It was already ruled in these earlier rulings that platforms are not liable to the actions fo publishers of such content.
But it is a case brought in trying to make the claim that such platforms are liable for terrorist activity and publishers of child porn (of course that is bad, yet apparently when it comes to problic schools its acceptable to put adult content in front of kids? Its nonesense).
The way things are being proposed it does not specifically target these actions as the sole responsibility of individuals is in reality a back hand way of imposing censorship on adults by countries that do not care about the rights of its citizens and use such censorship to keep crimes against humanity to protests against injustices to their lives and liberties so silence their dissent. One such example is where such jump on the ignorance band wagon with "The rest of the world is cracking down on the internet."
Yes, the very same "rest of the World" that inspired people to leave their countries to come to this country where they have as citizens (born or naturalized) protected to express their views and opinions and speak their minds regardless who objects to it knowing doing so won’t get them arrested or worse.
The people who fought for their independence and began the United States of America wrote into the constitution specifically to allow for the freedom of press, freedom of speech and expression as part of speech and the means to defend that speech and expression from such tyranny that the 'rest of the world' refused and failed to respect and honor.
But its right back in the courts not because of something occurring in America but what occurs with other countries. The very same countries that also consider the freedom to speak your mind and object to the behaviors of rulers as "acts of sedition and terrorism."
Being public platforms of communication, like it or not, and this includes search engines, restriction of speech and censorship is once again going overboard and playing the nonsense of "broad and sweeping strokes" claiming on one hand to protect "children" while also silencing adults objecting to actions that are not protecting children at all.
That's what is occurring now and in essence the various search engines and various platforms are in violation as American based companies violating the Constitution which protects our freedom of press, speech, and expression. It doesn't matter if we "like what someone else is saying or not. If we do not allow others the freedoms to say things we do not agree with we also take away our freedom to object to it.
If platofmrs are concerned as they claim to be, or various individuals and courts claim to be, about what "content" children and minors have access to, that has to also extend to what is being allowed to be pushed in and through the public schools. Furthermore, when it comes to online content, the simple solution to that is 'age verification' as a deterrent from children and minors accessing such adult content and communications, and only hold those liable that bypass such restrictions, not the platforms or the adult users themselves.
If the service provides content for children and minors than they need to keep adult communication out and separate what is meant for children and minors, from what is meant for adults, but also respect and abide by what parents are then allowed to review and weigh in on what is put in front of their children and minors.
Therefore it is a reasonable expectation that does not impose itself upon or violates the open communications of adults to and with other adults and they can learn to grow up and use the 'block' feature for content they do not want to see, and the platforms need to be more responsible to make efforts to block scams and take necessary measure to shut such scams down and be aided by the law to take action against such scams. It’s not that complicated as a concept.
That maintains all the requirements for 'social media' providing platforms allowing adults to continue to say what they want, when they want if they want regardless of complaints by a handful of objectors, and allow persons to report content involving child abuse or child exploitation, and the platforms to initiate legal action against those pushing that kind of content and leave all toe politics or political discussions up to end users who can also choose not to engage in such activities. Using a broad sword doesn't work and is simply unacceptable.
Even the so called "rules" on what constitute "hate speech” are simply too vague on one hand or extreme on the other. Its just another back door being used to further suppress freedom of speech and expression.
This was all dealt with before and shouldn't have to be rehashed because hand falls of special interest groups with their own agendas want to impose themselves on everyone else and call all the shots and spends too much time trying to "hold everyone’s hand trying to make "everyone happy" which is a delusional and self destructive stance to have.
It has become so ridiculous that one has to use "special speech" to avoid "offending someone" which is itself offensive. For example, instead of being allowed to say; "they were driven to suicide or killing themselves by..." it’s imposed that you have to say "they were 'inspired' to 'cancel or delete' themselves." Cancel or delete dehumanizes the situation and it’s NONSENSE.
It’s over censorship and it treats human beings as little more than themselves as programs. It has to stop or the problem will only get worse, not better and subjects us to the demands of foreign countries, not the rights that our constitution protects and preserves.
If our Judges in the US Supreme Court cannot comprehend that or choose not to recognize that, or do not know the entirety of the Constitution which is our Bill of Rights, than they are frankly unqualified and have no business holding such offices. If some foreign government want's to ban American businesses, let them. We have the same right to ban them and stop funding them also. Its not comlicated.