CDZ Do I have to allow you to post on my website?

[FA_Q2]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

 

[dblack]

In fact only the government can violate your first amendment rights by passing a law that restricts free speech

I think the main problem is ignorance. People don't even understand what rights are, so the concept of a government that "protects our rights" carries no meaning for them. To them, government is just a general purpose tool to make people do what we want.

Whether it's bake the cake, or forcing Facebook to indulge Alex Jones, it's a bad idea.

 

[Picaro]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

 

[dblack]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

"You didn't build that."

 

[Syriusly]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

AFAIK, you certainly can.

Though the term would be hire. Can you cite a single example where a private citizen was prosecuted for discrimination when hiring a service provider?

Why cant the homeowner rent to a Christian plumber?

Why do you think that a homeowner can't rent to a Christian plumber?

Because it's a Fair Housing violation and illegal to advertise as such.

Oh see you contards get so confused about this stuff.

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

 

[Syriusly]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

You contards get so confused by this private enterprise stuff.

Sure internet providers do utilize lines run through public and private lands- and they pay for those right of ways.

And radio stations use the public airways.

But that doesn't mean either is obligated to let you have a public forum to promote your racist or bigoted ideologies. No one is forcing Rush Limbaugh to provide 'equal time for opposing views'


And Facebook and Infowars of course are not service providers- they can do whatever they want.

Let me know when Infowars is forced to give equal time to non-racists.

 

[FA_Q2]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

Under this logic, everything is public domain. Tell me again why you are suddenly embracing total socialism?

 

[dblack]

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

So, the main thing is to keep your mouth shut. It's not what you do, but what you say that matters.

And it's not a freedom of speech issue how exactly?

 

[Kosh]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

What is funny is that people think that they own their property.

 

[Picaro]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

Under this logic, everything is public domain. Tell me again why you are suddenly embracing total socialism?

Wrong again. They're perfectly free to purchase their own right of ways on the private markets and not use the publicly subsidized right of ways. The only 'socialist's here are the right wingers, who suddenly love socialism when it lines their pockets and increases their control of markets. The Kochs are a typical example, always making big noises about their 'Libertarian values and belief in free markets', while making billions off of stealing private property via hiding behind 'eminent domain' laws and government seizures of other people's private property without any real 'free market' on what they want to pay for land.

Another great example is none of them ever run around demanding an end to 'corporate personhood' scams and limited liability for corporations, a huge subsidy and welfare program for Wall Street and the 'business' lobby, along with the limits on short sales and the like.

Tell me again why you need to lie about who is 'embracing socialism' here? Obviously it's you 'free market' hypocrites.

 

[Picaro]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

What is funny is that people think that they own their property.

No such thing as 'private property' when the 'right' has to be defined and enforced by government in the first place, true enough.

Something noteworthy about England in the second half of the 19th century and its laissez faire era is that their railroads and canals did not benefit from eminent domain policies, and they had to literally negotiate land and right of way prices with every land owner along the routes they wanted to build them. Much more expensive, and yet their roads had fewer and less severe bankruptcies than the American railroads, and English money financed a huge chunk of the U.S. on top of their own domestic industries.

 

[Kosh]

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

What is funny is that people think that they own their property.

No such thing as 'private property' when the 'right' has to be defined and enforced by government in the first place, true enough.

It is just funny how people believe that they own their property.

 

[Picaro]

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

What is funny is that people think that they own their property.

No such thing as 'private property' when the 'right' has to be defined and enforced by government in the first place, true enough.

Is that far left speak for something?

It is just funny how people believe that they own their property.

What's 'far left' about it? You think the reality is otherwise? How so?

 

[Darkwind]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

You, like everyone else, are making the wrong argument.

No, you don't have to allow anyone to post on your website.

Facebook does not have to allow it either.

The arguments aren't whether or not you should be allowed to post on facebook, but on the defined reason for not being allowed to post.

The left's definition of hate speech or speech that cannot be tolerated is wrong. Plain and simple.

What should be pointed out is their hatred. Their intolerance. Their bigotry.

If you are true to your intellectual beliefs, then you know that private property means that the owner gets to make the rules and that speech is protected from the oppression of governments, not private owners.

Force Facebook to violate its own moral beliefs, and you open the door to being forced to violate your own.

 

[Picaro]

lol yet more contradictory 'logic'; another reason to avoid ideologies, as they're all rubbish and insane.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, I think all that was implied by using the "off button". The main thing is, don't go whining to the government to fix it for you.

Who is calling for the government to step in?

Well, I was bringing it back to the topic: Alex Jones is calling for a congressional hearing. And many of the board Trumpsters are supporting him in that effort.

I just don't like seeing our rights being dumbed down to the point of actually inverting them. Which is happening. We, many of us anyway, are starting to see rights not as freedoms protected from government encroachment, but as claims on the cooperation of others. The left has long conflated these concerns, and frankly were the first to come up with this idea that an employer can violate Constitutional freedoms. Now the right is getting on board, which is very concerning. They've never been what I'd call stalwart defenders of freedom, but the Republicans have at least provided some check on the liberal ambitions of the Democrats. Seeing them accept the basic premises of the progressive agenda basically provides the last few nails in our national coffin.

This is true. But it doesn't apply to the facebook/google/twitter conundrum.

Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.

Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.

Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights

As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.

No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights

 

[TNHarley]

People should be able to do what they want with their property. Period.
Its THEIR property.

you really need to rethink that statement....should you allow half way houses for sex offenders next to schools?
would you allow a nudist club next to a church? the list is endless..there are reasons that zoning exists

I have no problem with reasonable zoning.
Excellent point.

 

[koshergrl]

Who is calling for the government to step in?

Well, I was bringing it back to the topic: Alex Jones is calling for a congressional hearing. And many of the board Trumpsters are supporting him in that effort.

I just don't like seeing our rights being dumbed down to the point of actually inverting them. Which is happening. We, many of us anyway, are starting to see rights not as freedoms protected from government encroachment, but as claims on the cooperation of others. The left has long conflated these concerns, and frankly were the first to come up with this idea that an employer can violate Constitutional freedoms. Now the right is getting on board, which is very concerning. They've never been what I'd call stalwart defenders of freedom, but the Republicans have at least provided some check on the liberal ambitions of the Democrats. Seeing them accept the basic premises of the progressive agenda basically provides the last few nails in our national coffin.

This is true. But it doesn't apply to the facebook/google/twitter conundrum.

Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.

Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.

Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights

As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.

No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights

Where do you get this shit?
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.

I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.

 

[koshergrl]

"There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."

"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "

Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship

 

[koshergrl]

"For good or ill, the social-media sphere is the new public sphere. The expulsion of people from these platforms is to 2018 what a state ban on the publication or sale of certain books was to 1618. "

Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship