[gjsman-1000]

We have a First Amendment... but if you run a platform that does not even use the First Amendment, you'll get subpoenaed and harassed.

In theory, I ran a platform that protected everything the First Amendment did, and protected nothing that the Amendment did not protect, I should be legally in the clear.

But I'm not going to attempt such a thing - because it's clear Congress would do the ultimate shakedown.

[IgorPartola]

How to misunderstand the situation 101: bring the first amendment into the discussion when that’s not what the discussion is about.

Let me break this down for you: you host a weekly poker night. My buddies and I come and during these nights plan a crime. We than carry out a crime and get arrested. The investigators come to you and ask “what did those guys talk about at your poker nights?” You say “poker stuff”. They subpoena you to get a better answer. Where in all of this did the first amendment come into play?

[MiroF]

> They subpoena you to get a better answer

Sure except the subpoena in question was not actually about records of conversations that the rioters had, it was about efforts FB did/didn't take to discount election misinformation.

Election misinformation is covered by free speech.

[IgorPartola]

> Election misinformation is covered by free speech.

In the same way as yelling “fire” in a theater.

[SV_BubbleTime]

So? Illegal the legal according to then overruled by SCOTUS, and widely misunderstood when it’s used as a reference?

[MiroF]

> In the same way as yelling “fire” in a theater.

Not at all? There's a clear moral (and certainly legal) dividing line between the two.

[Ardon]

But this subpoena has nothing to do with the first amendment, they're demanding for more records, not levying a penalty for not removing these people.

[barney54]

Not necessarily. The First Amendment is implicated if the federal government is trying to get these companies to act on their behalf and censor speech.

[Ardon]

Right, but this subpoena isn't doing that. The 'inadequate response' in the title of the post is referring to the companies' response to congress' request for data, not saying the companies' response to the speech on their platform was inadequate.

[barney54]

Yes, I understand that. My point is that many in Congress want these companies to preemptively censor what happens on their platforms and these subpoenas is an attempt to build that case.

[gilbetron]

You have the first amendment right to talk about crimes you are planning, but the government still gets to use what you said against you if you actually commit that crime.

[oneoff786]

Seditious conspiracy is a crime in itself

[shrimpx]

What do Twitter and Reddit have to do with the first amendment?

[throw_nbvc1234]

If you assume the companies are operating in a vacuum, probably nothing. If the government is trying to influence a private company what rules to use for moderation then the lines are blurred.

As other have said, this is a bit different then that since it's an investigation but I'm sure you can find some examples from the past years of politicians and government officials trying to influence moderation policies for better or worse.