Just say "I think this proposed Constitutional Amendment should distinguish between Corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc."
I chose to put "corporations" since it's shorter than "a legal entity formed by an associations of individuals for the purpose of maximizing profit and limiting liability." Perhaps the Amendment needs a new clause explaining that. It should certainly encompass all publicly-traded C-corps, but no reason it shouldn't apply to an LLC. Which massive social media tech companies are organized as LLCs?
Yes, you chose to draft an Constitutional Amendment that targets a limited business practice of a limited sector of a single industry. As I said it's the worst reason in the world to draft a Constitutional Amendment.
It shouldn't matter if there are social media tech companies organized as LLCs. It shouldn't matter if they're massive or not. It shouldn't matter if they're profit or non-profit.
That you have all of these limitations and allowances on something as far reaching as a Constitutional Amendment indicates that this isn't the type of thing that should be in the Constitution.
Okay. Yes, we'll strike down this (proposed / fictitious) Constitutional Amendment under the Equal Protection clause
If we're smart, we'd never draft it at all.
That's not a "hole." That's exactly the point. If YouTube / Facebook declared themselves a platform for liberal views or something like that, they would be able to run their liberal site. My proposed Amendment is actually very permissive.
You clearly don't have much corporate law experience. Facebook can make any platform claim they want. That you've limited your perspective to the labels of "liberal" or "conservative" demonstrates part of the problem in this idiotic thought exercise. To wit Facebook could label themselves as American viewpoints or the viewpoints of people born between 1900 and 2018. That would be a limitation to certain viewpoints thus excluding the corporation from your Amendment. Once that minor hurdle is cleared, nothing about what they do afterwards is changed. There is no way to demand that they remove the posts of people born after 2018 or who aren't American. Your Amendment doesn't say that.
Here's an example of how simple your proposal is to disregard. Normally, a corporation is supposed to be formed for a specific purpose. It's common practice for companies to include "...any and all lawful business." A 5 word phrase that allows them to engage in any business despite the legal request that they state a specific purpose for their corporation.
In your model, any half decent lawyer could craft an legally defensible viewpoint that means very little practically and thus remain above your Amendment.
It's a crappy idea where the legal workaround is that easy. You might as well not bother.
Well it sounds like you hate the law.
It sounds like you don't understand the Constitution. But you're right, I do hate your law.
I thought you were convinced that I'm not a lawyer. Nowhere in this post did stand upon my credentials (whatever they may be).
No, I've never questioned if you're a lawyer. I've questioned if you bring this low a level of reasoning into your real life practice.
As for you, assuming you're lawyer, what's wrong with a law requiring a private entity to respect rights of private persons? We already have thousands of laws like that. You're really think I'm just "bullying corporations?" Nah. There's only one reason I can think of why this would bother you.
Well, at the very root of it is that the rights we're discussing are not rights we have to other private persons. Followed by the fact that it attempts to coopt the Constitution for a personal grievance against private corporate action.
And the reason you can only think of one reason this would bother me is because you're not particularly interested in the purpose of the Constitution being a limitation on the government and I am. You're probably making the mistake of thinking that because you're viewing this issue through a partisan lens that the only way anyone else can view it is through the same lens. Wrong, not unusual, but still wrong.
It's a blatant perversion of what our Constitution exists to accomplish. It should bother anyone who cares about what actually makes this country special.
Dude, the Constitution is a political document. It represents the values of the people who wrote it. I'm guessing you have no problem with the way social media corporations have been behaving lately. That's fine. This Amendment would indeed curtail their speech rights in favor of private citizens. Now we know that this concept bothers you.
No, the Constitution is not a political document. It's a legal document. It is the law in fact, not just in theory. Maybe you're confusing it with the Declaration of Independence which is just a political document.
And, no, I have no problem with social media corporations regulating speech on their private platforms. Those platforms are privately owned. I similarly have no problem with radio hosts hanging up on or screening their callers. I have no problem with newspapers refusing to print some op-eds from the public.
I have no problem whatsoever with private media corporations self-regulating.
I do have a problem with people who constantly misuse the freedom of speech to force rules on the speech between 2 private entities.
And I always have a problem with partisan law making.