the 1st Vs Social media

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by sparky, Apr 11, 2018.

  1. BULLDOG
    Offline

    BULLDOG Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    47,677
    Thanks Received:
    5,636
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +30,705
    If he wants to show their videos, that's fine, but either way, it has nothing to do with the right of free speech.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,045
    Thanks Received:
    10,237
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,884
    Yes, ignorance, hate, and stupidity is very popular among conservatives.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,045
    Thanks Received:
    10,237
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,884
    Of course they do.

    But ‘freedom of speech’ has nothing to do with Facebook.

    Now, should government seek to silence Diamond and Silk through force of law and punitive measures, then you’d have a free speech issue.
     
  4. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,045
    Thanks Received:
    10,237
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,884
    Anyone who has a problem with it only exhibits his ignorance of the law.

    From your link:

    ‘The Supreme Court has consistently upheld these types of obligations, noting that “[d]isclosure

    permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.

    This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to

    different speakers and messages.”

    As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Doe v. Reed, “Requiring people to stand up in public

    for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.” Updating our

    disclosure laws to include digital political advertising is essential to maintaining a democracy

    where citizens can make informed decisions.’

    Consequently, the Honest Ads Act is prima facia Constitutional, consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,045
    Thanks Received:
    10,237
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,884
    And private media entities, internet platforms, and online hosting sites are at complete liberty to edit or remove content as they see fit, where such editing in no manner ‘violates’ free speech.
     
  6. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,948
    Thanks Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +2,657

    Then i guess i'm in need of an education Clayton, because i see the HA act as a means for the gub'mit to confront what private industry is putting up for political advertising

    What is the difference betwixt that , and all these banners i drive by around here on private biz? (there's a LOT of 'em)
    [​IMG]



    Perhaps reading some pro's con's might help...?

    ~S~
     
  7. Tilly
    Offline

    Tilly Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2015
    Messages:
    13,287
    Thanks Received:
    4,779
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Erob: Where the Sun Sets West of Phoenecia
    Ratings:
    +19,846
    It has to do with censorship and you were clearly thrilled they’d been censored. You also claimed they were dangerous but you have yet to explain how.
    I’m glad he apologised and said it was an error (even though I doubt the veracity of this statement) and that the women you refer to as ‘fat ignorant sluts’ will no longer be censored by FB since Suckerborg repeatedly claims to be aiming for greater fairness in allowing the expression of the views of both the left and the right.
    So how are they dangerous in your view?
     
  8. regent
    Offline

    regent Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    9,748
    Thanks Received:
    1,048
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,432
    It was our first conservative party, the Federalists, that passed laws against free speech. It was also the end of that first party, and the period after was called the Era of good feelings.
     
  9. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,948
    Thanks Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +2,657
    I've read some of the federalist papers , but sadly missed that regent

    ~S~
     
  10. regent
    Offline

    regent Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    9,748
    Thanks Received:
    1,048
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,432
    The Federalist Papers were "letters to the editor." The Sedition Act occurred during the Adams administration.
     

Share This Page