There is no crime identified or being alleged against Twitter or the other social media companies, so the video isn’t in that territory. In many of their videos they set up a context different from that in which a conversation actually occurred and then interject video clips that they’ve secretly recorded and mood music and slides to try to paint a certain picture that is different than what one gets from a raw and unedited version of the video.
doesn’t apply. it is not an argument from ignorance. he claims he has a story about to be released. i am not making a judgment on his story because i haven’t seen it.
has jamie ever been proven to work for pv? it may apply to wp since they are alleging she does.
how is what pv is doing is any different from what wp does?
They’ve been in trouble before. O’keefe has already plead guilty to a criminal conviction in previous years and his organization has had to pay money for damages. Though if they get sufficient donations financial penalties might not discourage their behaviour much.
The primary claim that they are making in the activities behind this story is that the social media companies are silencing conservative voices on the Internet because they are conservative and that this is said to be a violation of the First amendment. They are not the first ones that have made the claim . But many others that have made the claim and announcing taking action have said they will argue their stance in the courts and supply as their evidence a record of actions instead of heavily edited and dramatized video clips. (I’ve been following the PragerU v Google/Youtube case). For these cases there is at least a common set of legally acquired facts that both parties agree upon.
While I can’t agree that this California law is a good one I have to say Veritas should probably follow these laws if they want to be taken seriously. All that being said illegal or not Twitter is doing something that is egregious and unfair if you ask me.
Various states have restrictions on secretly recording someone without their consent or notification. It’s not just California.
I’m waiting for the cases to actually be filed against Twitter for examination. As of yet I don’t think any have been filed. Milo Yiannopoulos and Roger Stone had said they would by filing cases. But I’ve not seen that it has happened yet.
For the USA there are interesting cases. Social Media companies are not State Actors and if they disallow someone’s communication it doesn’t meet the description of the violation of the first. They’ve been able to defend their ability to do so thus far with laws that protect the ability of a company that provides digital interactive services if they decide to disallow a message. They also have protections in the first ammendment as deciding whether and where to allow a message to be visible is like an editorial decision . PragerU’s arguments against Google appear to rely on trying to get Google classified as a different type of service.
Since the ranking of a post can be decided algorithmically I also wonder how the actions of an algorithm would be evaluated in such a case. When a particular message gets low visibility if there are multiple factors that lowered the messages ranking how does one determine if there was intentional and unfair action behind it? I’m sure these questions and more will come up in the PragerU case. And that case may have ramifications on the other cases yet to be filed.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
