Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?* 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.
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?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.Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?No, they didnt
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.
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 . .
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.
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...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.
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.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.
So you then agree with the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.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.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.
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.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?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.Business PA law of their state. But I'm guessing you support them doing so, right?No, they didntUnless there is a law
The bakery broke the law
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.
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.
If they can't follow business law, take away their business license. Easy Peasy.So you then agree with the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding.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.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.