Little Legal Recourse for Supremacists Booted Off Tech Platforms, Experts Say

, Corporate Counsel

   | 5 Comments

A small group of tech companies are legally protected, for the most part, in their decisions to kick users off their platforms for privately and publicly espousing white supremacy.

This premium content is reserved for Legal Technology subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • TST

    O.W. Holmes, if they had a good case, they‘d be rushing to bring it. They don‘t. Public accommodations cases that involve the public‘s right to not be discriminated against by a business who serves the general public based on criteria such as race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc., are not the same as violation of terms-of-use agreements. A bakery (or any business) can have a no-profanity or no-hate-speech policy, and have the right to kick out anyone who engages in that behavior. It is based on the speech/behavior, not on one‘s status in a protected class (race, etc.). If a KKK-member/baker does not want to bake for a black person, the state won‘t force them to at gun point -- but they also won‘t permit them to continue running a public business, and I‘m OK with that policy.

  • O.W. Holmes

    Actually, TST, alt-right groups have a very good public-accommodations case to make against these near-monopoly social media platforms and other service providers. Just because left-wing lawyers hurried to are offer their half-baked, wishful analyses to the leftwing NLJ, that doesn‘t make their analyses sound. After all, if gay wedding cakes are to be baked at gunpoint, so too must access be provided to other public accommodations.

  • TST

    Cal ‘Social Liberal‘ -- what hypocrisy? Read the Constitution and study First Amendment legal cases. Free speech means the government cannot interfere with speech (except for very limited circumstances) -- it does not guarantee that any private corporation must give you a platform for your speech. Also, your poorly-veiled Muslim-bashing is ridiculous. Terrorism is rightly the object of scorn, but not the major world religion that terrorists have attempted to coopt for their own means. I presume you wouldn‘t agree with people being discriminated against for being Christian or Jewish, so the same applies to Muslims, atheists, etc. If you don‘t like it, I know some other countries that have no problem dictating what religions are acceptable.

  • lellyseverrer

    Money problems? Learn how to trade and be financially free. Google Superior Trading System.

  • California Social Liberal Turning Conservative

    How do these ‘non-governmental‘ entities have a legal right to restrict the rights of persons who have committed no crimes, yet if a similar right wing company pursued similar policies against a religio-political ideology (which happens to be repeatedly & more closely associated with mayhem & terrorism around the world than neo-Nazism) the constitution would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Does anyone else see the ludicrous hypocrisy here?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202795729273

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.