Facebook Deletes “Donald Trump is Our President” Facebook Fan Page with 3,276,000 Fans!

[WEATHER53]

Quaking children who must have removed from all sight and sound Anything that challenges their emotionally distorted feelings.

 

[progressive hunter]

So you agree it's not a First Amendment issue?

It is a First Amendment issue! How is it not, given the reason for Section 230 in the first place? How is standard political speech offensive or indecent? And why are you avoiding the obvious point of my observation? Google and Facebook should be stripped of the protection. Period. That's the only constitutional remedy if they are not gong to abide by the law affording them the protection. Those demanding they be stripped of that special, extra-constitutional protection, like Trump, understand constitutional law just fine.

This is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now...show us where it covers private businesses. Talk about obvious..........

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

as usual you are dead wrong,,,

Good answer, good answer.

better than yours,,,

 

[Ringtone]

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

Still trying to gaslight, eh? Still pretending that Google and Facebook didn't agree to accept the protection of a public platform and that the content they're unlawfully censoring is that of the public. The platforms are free to express their opinions. The government is not stopping them from doing that, and no one is trying to stop them from doing that. Rather, we demand that they either obey the law or be stripped of the protection. Stop lying, dblack.

I see that you won't directly refute these posts, dblack! All I hear is crickets chirping.

Once again, dblack engages in ignorantia affectata. Facebook advertises itself as an open public forum in terms of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996, which provides immunity from liability for providers of interactive computer services who publish information provided by others. Facebook routinely violates its own rules and moves the goalposts for no other reason than to censor conservative views, often defining them as indecent or offensive. Facebook actually features Antifa on its platform and has banned Patriot Prayer and other free speech advocates out of Berkeley, Seattle and Portland, for example, who oppose them.

If Facebook is going to behave as a publisher of leftist filth, censor conservative thought and hide behind the protections afforded a public provider under the law,. I say it's time to revoke its immunity. I say it should be treated for what it is, namely, a publisher.

Facebook is violating the spirit of constitutional law and the letter of pertinent civil law. dblack is consciously lying regarding the actual outcome relative to constitutional law and is trying to gaslight Trump supporters. What a piece of shit dblack is. He speaks with forked tongue. He knows in his heart of hearts that his reasoning is bogus.

crickets chirping​

Except that it's not true capitalism because Facebook and Google are afforded a special protection that other publishers, indeed, that you and I, don't have as they violate the terms of that protection provided them by the people via Section 230 of the Communications Act.

Are any of you hypocrites, hysterical Trump haters or "constitutional scholars" going to address that point?

crickets chirping
​

So you agree that Google and Facebook are not entitled to the special, extra-constitutional protection afforded them by the people via Section 230 of the Communications Act, right? If they are not going to abide by the law that provides that protection, then they should be made to sink or swim as a publisher sans that protection in the free market of goods, services and ideas . . . just like Trump and other real civil libertarians believe, as opposed to those affecting an air of ignorantia affectata as they pretend not to understand what the real constitutional concern is; you know, the whole reason that the protection of Section 230 was given in the first place, namely, to protect open and vigorous debate!

crickets chirping


It is a First Amendment issue! How is it not, given the reason for Section 230 in the first place? How is standard political speech offensive or indecent? And why are you avoiding the obvious point of my observation? Google and Facebook should be stripped of the protection. Period. That's the only constitutional remedy if they are not gong to abide by the law affording them the protection. Those demanding they be stripped of that special, extra-constitutional protection, like Trump, understand constitutional law just fine.

crickets chirping​

 

[dblack]

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

Still trying to gaslight, eh? Still pretending that Google and Facebook didn't agree to accept the protection of a public platform and that the content they're unlawfully censoring is that of the public. The platforms are free to express their opinions. The government is not stopping them from doing that, and no one is trying to stop them from doing

There should be no special protections for anyone. If they exist, they need to be eliminated, rather than used as an excuse for more big-government bullying. This is the exact same bullshit the liberals pull. They offer up special perks to different special interests and then use them for arm-twisting. It smells just as bad when Republicans do it.

* BTW, re: "gaslight". Are you sure you're not mixing this up with some other term? Gaslighting is a psychological technique that attempts to get someone to question their sanity. If my comments are causing you to question your sanity, that's not my intent. That's on you.

 

[WEATHER53]

Fakebook
The Democrat policy advancement forumn

 

[Ringtone]

It's not a First Amendment issue unless the government tries to pass laws violating free speech. If, for example, the big-government Trumpsters get their way and we use the law to control the content of privately owned websites - that would be a violation of the First and an honest Court would strike down such laws.

Still trying to gaslight, eh? Still pretending that Google and Facebook didn't agree to accept the protection of a public platform and that the content they're unlawfully censoring is that of the public. The platforms are free to express their opinions. The government is not stopping them from doing that, and no one is trying to stop them from doing

There should be no special protections for anyone. If they exist, they need to be eliminated, rather than used as an excuse for more big-government bullying. This is the exact same bullshit the liberals pull. They offer up special perks to different special interests and then use them for arm-twisting. It smells just as bad when Republicans do it.

* BTW, re: "gaslight". Are you sure you're not mixing this up with some other term? Gaslighting is a psychological technique that attempts to get someone to question their sanity. If my comments are causing you to question your sanity, that's not my intent. That's on you.

You're out of touch. The term gaslight/gaslighting is routinely used by conservatives especially in the age of PC to indicate when leftists are trying to demonize conservative speech, arguments and initiatives as being insane. And once again you're making baby talk. No one is seeking to censor Google and Facebook or compel them to actively express things with which they don't agree. They freely agreed to be afforded the protection of a public platform; they want that protection . . . but they never had any attention to abide by its terms once they were established. The only party suppressing speech is Google and Facebook. You're still lying because that is precisely what conservatives are calling for; i.e., that they either abide by the terms of the protection or be stripped of it. Nothing more and nothing other. You're stupidly arguing as if they don't want the protection, as if they're not trying to hang on to that protection as they suppress conservative speech.

Your logic fails again. It is you who is foolishly and naively arguing against the actuality of things.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Facebook is ran by a soy boy..

Little faggot looking dude with a Napoleon complex...aka your typical leftist cuckold male

 

[dblack]

* BTW, re: "gaslight". Are you sure you're not mixing this up with some other term? Gaslighting is a psychological technique that attempts to get someone to question their sanity. If my comments are causing you to question your sanity, that's not my intent. That's on you.

You're out of touch. The term gaslight/gaslighting is routinely used by conservatives especially in the age of PC to indicate when leftists are trying to demonize conservative speech, arguments and initiatives as being insane.

Ahh.. ok. Well, as long as I know that you mean something different, that's fine. I just thought you were referring to the definition of the word that appears in the dictionary. Maybe you guys should put out a glossary of all the words you've redefined?

 

[ThisIsMe]

So is a bakery.

Unless there is a law

The bakery broke the law

No, they didnt

Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?

It really doesnt make any sense explaining it. No matter how many times someone says they were exercising a religious belief, the left will never accept it.

The left believes that everyone should accept their ideas, even if it goes against ones personal or religious value system.

However, again, they refused because their religious beliefs made them feel like baking a cake specifically for a same sex wedding was akin to them participating. They did not refuse service, as they stated they would have sold them a cake that was already made, but they would not bake a cake specifically for the ceremony.

If someone can claim religious beliefs when ignoring one business law (PA law) they were supposed to follow when getting their business license....what's to stop them claiming religious beliefs when ignoring other business laws....like health laws...like safety laws?

I dont know, what religious beliefs would warrant them ignoring health or safety laws? As far as I'm aware, the Bible doesnt state anywhere that followers must be unsanitary or unsafe.

 

[dblack]

No one is seeking to censor Google and Facebook or compel them to actively express things with which they don't agree. They freely agreed to be afforded the protection of a public platform; they want that protection . .

Of course they did. Again, this is the same game the liberals play. Offer up free shit and who will say no? But then the government gets to use it later as leverage to bully its enemies.

The only party suppressing speech is Google and Facebook.

You seem to be confusing businesses with government, another common conceit of liberals. Business isn't empowered to suppress free speech. Unless they take violent action against people saying things they don't like (something that's already very illegal), they aren't suppressing anything. Hint: refusing to provide a platform for ideas you disagree with is NOT suppression.

You're still lying because that is precisely what conservatives are calling for; i.e., that they either abide by the terms of the protection or be stripped of it.

Then make a liar out of me. Strip the special protections and stop whining for the government to bully people you don't like.

 

[Camp]

Trump should immediately be banned from Twitter. His malicious hateful rants should be censored from public promotion by private platforms, including broadcast news.

No owner or investor in a private news source or venue should be forced to promote Trump garbage.

 

[Desperado]

Trump should immediately be banned from Twitter. His malicious hateful rants should be censored from public promotion by private platforms, including broadcast news.

No owner or investor in a private news source or venue should be forced to promote Trump garbage.

Now you are against free speech, If it does not agree with you , you say shut them down. You are pond scum the lowest form of life. My guess is you were not brought up believing that I may not agree with what he says but I will fight for his right to say it.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Trump should immediately be banned from Twitter. His malicious hateful rants should be censored from public promotion by private platforms, including broadcast news.

No owner or investor in a private news source or venue should be forced to promote Trump garbage.

Just like the Chinese Democrats do in China...

 

[mikegriffith1]

David Duke is an idiot. You really should remove his picture from your sigblock. It discredits everything you say.

 

[Camp]

Trump should immediately be banned from Twitter. His malicious hateful rants should be censored from public promotion by private platforms, including broadcast news.

No owner or investor in a private news source or venue should be forced to promote Trump garbage.

Now you are against free speech, If it does not agree with you , you say shut them down. You are pond scum the lowest form of life. My guess is you were not brought up believing that I may not agree with what he says but I will fight for his right to say it.

Privately owned venues have nothing to do with free speech. Privately owned venues and individuals are the ones the constitution was written for. Forcing a privately owned venue to publish or promote things rhey disagree with or find offensive would be a violation of the owner's free speech. Go start your own venue if you are unhappy and unsatisfied with the ones available.

 

[Desperado]

Trump should immediately be banned from Twitter. His malicious hateful rants should be censored from public promotion by private platforms, including broadcast news.

No owner or investor in a private news source or venue should be forced to promote Trump garbage.

Now you are against free speech, If it does not agree with you , you say shut them down. You are pond scum the lowest form of life. My guess is you were not brought up believing that I may not agree with what he says but I will fight for his right to say it.

Privately owned venues have nothing to do with free speech. Privately owned venues and individuals are the ones the constitution was written for. Forcing a privately owned venue to publish or promote things rhey disagree with or find offensive would be a violation of the owner's free speech. Go start your own venue if you are unhappy and unsatisfied with the ones available.

So you then agree with the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[bodecea]

Facebook is ran by a soy boy..

Little faggot looking dude with a Napoleon complex...aka your typical leftist cuckold male

Tell us more about cuckolds.

 

[bodecea]

Unless there is a law

The bakery broke the law

No, they didnt

Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?

It really doesnt make any sense explaining it. No matter how many times someone says they were exercising a religious belief, the left will never accept it.

The left believes that everyone should accept their ideas, even if it goes against ones personal or religious value system.

However, again, they refused because their religious beliefs made them feel like baking a cake specifically for a same sex wedding was akin to them participating. They did not refuse service, as they stated they would have sold them a cake that was already made, but they would not bake a cake specifically for the ceremony.

If someone can claim religious beliefs when ignoring one business law (PA law) they were supposed to follow when getting their business license....what's to stop them claiming religious beliefs when ignoring other business laws....like health laws...like safety laws?

I dont know, what religious beliefs would warrant them ignoring health or safety laws? As far as I'm aware, the Bible doesnt state anywhere that followers must be unsanitary or unsafe.

There's nothing about gay marriage and cakes either.....it's all made up to cover for bigotry. And now we have businesses refusing to serve interracial couples and using the same excuses. And so it begins.

 

[bodecea]

Trump should immediately be banned from Twitter. His malicious hateful rants should be censored from public promotion by private platforms, including broadcast news.

No owner or investor in a private news source or venue should be forced to promote Trump garbage.

Now you are against free speech, If it does not agree with you , you say shut them down. You are pond scum the lowest form of life. My guess is you were not brought up believing that I may not agree with what he says but I will fight for his right to say it.

Privately owned venues have nothing to do with free speech. Privately owned venues and individuals are the ones the constitution was written for. Forcing a privately owned venue to publish or promote things rhey disagree with or find offensive would be a violation of the owner's free speech. Go start your own venue if you are unhappy and unsatisfied with the ones available.

So you then agree with the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.

If they can't follow business law, take away their business license. Easy Peasy.