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

[koshergrl]

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

I don't, though.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

 

[koshergrl]

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has. I think that was his original intent. He's actually likened fb to utilities, but then when asked about it he claimed he meant it in a different way (than he said it..which is really unlikely with Zuck. He's fairly articulate, if dishonest.)

Facebook is destined to become a regulated public utility

Facebook Is to Power Company as ...

I think that what he will do is what he always does...give a little, in order to calm people down. And do what the federal government does to the people they target...take a whole lot of action to reduce the reach and the scope of the people he wants to marginalize, then after a certain amount of time say "oh that was silly, sorry! Go ahead and talk now..."

 

[Skull Pilot]

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

OK Karnak

How about tomorrow's Powerball numbers?

and didn't you say this

if you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to have your writing seen by anyone

 

[Skull Pilot]

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

 

[dblack]

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

I don't, though.

So what limits it for you? Why is it "different when we do it"? Take a specific example: would you be OK with Democrats using the same logic to crack down on Fox News?

 

[koshergrl]

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

I don't, though.

So what limits it for you? Why is it "different when we do it"? Take a specific example: would you be OK with Democrats using the same logic to crack down on Fox News?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why is what different when we do it?

I'm not advocating anybody crack down on anything. I'm saying it's a crime to work together to deprive people of their rights. I'm saying it's a crime to publicly slander and libel politicians and others for the purpose of discrediting and causing them financial hardship. I'm saying it's fraud to say you're PRESS when in reality, you are a propagandist.

You people don't understand this because you don't recognize reality or truth. You think if someone says something mean about someone that is true, it's exactly the same as if someone tells a mean lie about someone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

 

[dblack]

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

I don't, though.

So what limits it for you? Why is it "different when we do it"? Take a specific example: would you be OK with Democrats using the same logic to crack down on Fox News?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why is what different when we do it?

I'm not advocating anybody crack down on anything. I'm saying to stop cracking down.

You want Facebook declared a public utility so you can punish them for not doing what you want. But your people won't always be in charge of government. When the Democrats are back in power, they could make the same kinds of claims against right wing supporters and Fox News. Would you be ok with that?

 

[koshergrl]

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

 

[Toronado3800]

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

If the outcry doesn't die down you might get two groups of people together to use their favorite tool, big government, to regulate Facebook and maybe not improperly.

There is this quasi NAZI conspiracy group who thinks there is a leftist computer elite movement to silence them. There are still some anti-business hippies there as well who just hate big business.

So, the tea party and some Bernie Sanders folks MIGHT just get enough votes to declare Facebook a monopoly and regulate them. The Tumpsters can declare Obama made a mistake letting Facebook buy Instagram. The hippies can declare they are fighting for the little guy.

And really I'm open to debate that Facebook has a monopoly even though there is no excuse for 1/2 the planet not to have their own website.

 

[koshergrl]

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

I don't, though.

So what limits it for you? Why is it "different when we do it"? Take a specific example: would you be OK with Democrats using the same logic to crack down on Fox News?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why is what different when we do it?

I'm not advocating anybody crack down on anything. I'm saying to stop cracking down.

You want Facebook declared a public utility so you can punish them for not doing what you want. But your people won't always be in charge of government. When the Democrats are back in power, they could make the same kinds of claims against right wing supporters and Fox News. Would you be ok with that?

I don't want fb declared a public utility. I think that it might be declared a public utility. I know the effort will be made..particularly if zuck and his pals continue to work together to limit free speech.

Democrats won't be back in power.

And what kinds of claims have I made? I have zero confidence in your comprehension skills, you keep assigning me weird assertions that I haven't made.

And your obsession with fox news is typical. I don't watch fox news. I get my news from multiple sources all over the internet.

 

[dblack]

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

I don't, though.

So what limits it for you? Why is it "different when we do it"? Take a specific example: would you be OK with Democrats using the same logic to crack down on Fox News?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why is what different when we do it?

I'm not advocating anybody crack down on anything. I'm saying to stop cracking down.

You want Facebook declared a public utility so you can punish them for not doing what you want. But your people won't always be in charge of government. When the Democrats are back in power, they could make the same kinds of claims against right wing supporters and Fox News. Would you be ok with that?

I don't want fb declared a public utility. I think that it might be declared a public utility. I know the effort will be made..particularly if zuck and his pals continue to work together to limit free speech.

Democrats won't be back in power.

Wow... ok. I give up. Your blinders are impenetrable.

And your obsession with fox news is typical. I don't watch fox news. I get my news from multiple sources all over the internet.

I don't give a shit about Fox News. I'm trying to get you to understand the very basic concept that it goes both ways. The power you are clamoring for won't always be used the way you want. It can be used to thwart your interests as easily as it can be used to promote them. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The first amendment does not guarantee you an audience.

And there is currently no foreseeable action to classify any social media site as a public utility

It ain't gonna happen

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

 

[dblack]

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

The basic problem here is that kg, and most of the Trumpsters I've seen posting on the issue, have bought into the progressive conception of "rights". To them, a right isn't about being free from government interference. It's about forcing other people to do what you want.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say the first amendment guarantees an audience.

And I foresee an action to classify social media sites as public utilities.

And I think zuckerberg foresees that as well. I think he always has.

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

 

[dblack]

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech.

No, it doesn't. This is simply a factual error on your part. Look it up. The First Amendment applies only to laws created by the government. It's very obvious in the text of the amendment itself "Congress shall make no law ..."

 

[Skull Pilot]

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

It is illegal for the GOVERNMENT TO PASS A LAW that restricts free speech

it is not illegal for any private party to tell you what you can and can't say in their place of business or on their websites

 

[Skull Pilot]

And what has Z said that makes you think that?

But hey of you the rest of the Facebook dupes want to start paying for Facebook because it was declared a public utility, and there is not a single public utility that is free to the consumer, go ahead

I don't want that. I want zuckerberg to stop hiring people who use their moderator status to shut down free speech. I want people to be fined and, when appropriate, prosecuted, for that shit.

If you want that then buy a majority share in the company so you can make policy or start your own social media site and make up your own rules

You have no say in what a private company does

UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAW.

And it is illegal for them to use their status and power to stifle free speech, or to allow themselves to be used to stage a coup.
Which is of course what antifa is all about. Have any antifa groups been banned from fb yet?

And they are not breaking the law

The first amendment does not guarantee you a venue from which to express yourself.

No one's free speech is stifled when they get kicked off of a social media website since they can still say what they want on another website, or they can create a pamphlet and hand it out, or they can start their own website, or publish their own book or get a permit and use public property etc etc etc etc.

You still seem to think that an audience and a venue is guaranteed by the first and you are wrong

The first amendment provides that it is illegal to stifle free speech. That is something separate from *providing a venue*.

You are wrong.

Even if you were right ( you're not) then Facebook cannot stifle anyone's free speech because everyone is free to use any of a million other venues