Petition for 1st amendment protections on social media

Summary of Proposal:
The purpose of this Petition is to spur action in the US government to begin the formation of an Internet Bill of Rights. Beginning with regulations to protect the 1st amendment on Social Media websites and services. Effective monopolies now exist online, allowing a select few to control what can be seen or said by people in these public forums where a majority of the conversation online is held. Though they are private companies if they will not uphold 1st amendment protections for Americans action should be taken by the gov't to protect our rights online.

The goal is to only regulate large sites/services that have a majority control over the public's conversations online, and to only regulate services that are “Free” for users. The regulations would be based on previous and future 1st amendment rulings, and apply the same as  in other public places/forums only to US citizens or US based IP addresses.


Definitions(Including but not limited to), for following suggestions on the proposal”

Social Media
A Website or Service that provides a platform for discussion/conversations, and/or
A Website or Service that hosts user generated content for the purpose of discussion/conversation/entertainment or other, and/or
A Website or Service that encourages users to create social circles and share information, ideas, news, within,through, and from other circles


Privately Owned Public Internet Platforms/Forums/Spaces(Who would be regulated)
A Social Media website or Service that hosts 1 million or more visitors per quarter, of whom at least 100,000 or more of the visitors are US citizens or US based IP address
A Social Media Website or service that operates out of the US(servers, headquarters, offices, ect)

A  Social Media Website or Service that has no fee to post content to the service, may not require an account, or no fee to have an account
A Social Media  Website or Service that has a 60% majority of it's revenue come from selling advertisement deals, user data, or user services(or fees for services), and/or

User(s):
A US citizen or US based IP address using the Social Media website/service/platform

Examples of inclusions/exemptions based on Case Law for the 1st amendment.
A private forum hosted locally by a user(s)
A decentralized forum hosted on many user computers(not hosted on servers owned by a single or few companies)
A large private forum who is 60% majority funded by donations from users(NOT account fees) or private institutions

1st amendment protections for access to Social Media
Including but not limited to “Hate Speech”, Satire, Parody, Obvious attempts at humor
Excluding but not limited to harassment, individual threats of violence, incitement, ect.(what is already illegal)


Suggestions for Proposal:
Defined Social Media Wesbites/Services/Platforms are to be reclassified as Privately owned public platforms/forums/spaces and subject to the following regulations.

Defined sites/services must uphold 1st amendment protections of Users, Companies/Owners who violate this regulation will be fined minimum 25% of their previously reported yearly revenue, if they are found guilty of violating 1st amendment protections online.

Defined Social Media Websites cannot deny access to their service from US citizens or US based IP addresses, nor can they ”shadowban”, restrict,, or reduce visibility of those users to other users(individual users or group users blocking/muting/ignoring of other users is allowed), (blocking of spam robots by the site/service is permitted), They are to immediately overturn previous bans on defined Users.

Users who have violated 1st amendment protections may be banned from the service indefinitely subject to the company's will, however for users with a large audience/following(minimum 10K dedicated “followers”,”likes”,”subscribers”,ect) on that platform/service, the proposed ban is to be reviewed by a judge before it may be approved

The judge would be based in the State of the IP address or Residence of the user where the majority activity comes from. After ruling on the ban based on evidence from the company, the user has a right to defend themselves from a ban in court and must be sent a proper notice of summons to court if they wish to defend themselves, if successful in appealing the ban they may sue for loss of income, or other damages, above any agreements in a “Terms of Service” for using the site/service. If the user refuses the summons or is unable to show up and fails to file an extension the company may proceed with the ban.

If the company/owner of the Social Media site do not notify a judge before banning defined large audience user they will be subject to penalties at minimum of 1% of their previously reported yearly revenue, barring extenuating circumstances that may cause a delay in the filing.

To protect the companies/platforms themselves, Social Media Websites/Services/Platforms are not to be held responsible any illegal activity done by users on their site/service.


-@LordStreetguru