FBI agent under oath: FBI met weekly with Big Tech to censor political information.

[Curried Goats]

I don't really care...the issue is when the employer (tweeter) is a state actor and is discriminating against the free speech rights of guest to that property. It has nothing to do with employees v employer

Twitter is not your employer though are they?

 

[struth]

You mean the private company was created out of legislative authority. That's different than a private company created by a private individual.

Yes. A rule of doctrine for employee rights, not guest rights.

All companies have to get a charter from the Govt...that's not the issue in any of itself and that's not what makes it a State Actor.

The State Actor doctrine has nothing to do with employee rights v guest rights.

 

[Curried Goats]

All companies have to get a charter from the Govt...that's not the issue in any of itself and that's not what makes it a State Actor.

What made them a state actor is that the company itself was created out of legislation not simply issued a business license.

The State Actor doctrine has nothing to do with employee rights v guest rights.

The case you cited was about employees suing an employer. Of course it's relevant.

 

[Marener]

The case I cited was about the State Actor Doctrine...well I provided part of the text, you just provided some more of it...doesn't change anything

You are guilty of watering down the standard by removing significant text.

It changes a lot.

 

[struth]

Twitter is not your employer though are they?

They don't have to do be to be a State Actor that violates my rights.

 

[Curried Goats]

They don't have to do be to be a State Actor that violates my rights.

Again employees have rights. If the state coerces your employer then that would be a violation of rights you already have. You don't have rights to free speech on private property to begin with. This isn't that hard to understand my guy.

 

[struth]

What made them a state actor is that the company itself was created out of legislation not simply issued a business license.

The case you cited was about employees suing an employer. Of course it's relevant.

I literally provided you a number of cases that define what makes a company a state actor.

the cases I provided were about the State Actor Doctrine, not employer- employee relations., iun fact the first one I sited was about black people being discriminated against at a parking lot....it's obvious you didn't read them.....but with that said, a State Actor can't violate the Constitutional rights of employees either.

 

[struth]

Again employees have rights. If the state coerces your employer then that would be a violation of rights you already have. You don't have rights to free speech on private property to begin with. This isn't that hard to understand my guy.

If the company is a State Actor, they can't violate your rights...this isn't a hard concept to understand...that's what we are talking about here...

 

[struth]

You are guilty of watering down the standard by removing significant text.

It changes a lot.

No, it changes nothing....I literally cited the case to review. When applying the black letter law to what the FBI did with tweeter, it's clear the tweeter was a state actor, that was violating the rights of citizens by censoring political speech.

Once again though, it's moot at this point, the Demafascist ran the company in the ground and were forced to sell.

 

[hadit]

What do you think Terms of Service means you, Dipshit?

To be truthful, you'd have to state in those terms of service that only viewpoints acceptable to the party are allowed.

No, you are exercising your first amendment rights.

Nope, if you run ads for a candidate, you're making a donation. If you give a candidate free access to your private property, you're making a donation. Technically, if you simply say to your neighbor that you like a candidate, you're making a donation. Of course, you're not going to get in trouble for it, but if you're a multi-billion-dollar company that reaches millions of people and you use your platform to suppress messages favoring other candidates while promoting messages favoring yours, you are making a substantial donation.

 

[Curried Goats]

I literally provided you a number of cases that define what makes a company a state actor.

That doesnt mean you correctly assessed them.

the cases I provided were about the State Actor Doctrine, not employer- employee relations., iun fact the first one I sited was about black people being discriminated against at a parking lot....

Why is discrimination against a black man a fun fact?

Did you read and understand the particulars of that case?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

In August 1958 William H. Burton, an African American, entered the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, a restaurant leasing space within a parking garage operated by the Wilmington Parking Authority, and was denied service solely because of his race. The Parking Authority is a tax-exempt, private corporation created by legislative action of the City of Wilmington for the purpose of operating the city's parking facilities, and its construction projects are partially funded by contributions from the city. The Parking Authority provided the restaurant heating and gas services and maintained the premises at its own expense.

This was 1958 where if they had been a completely private entity that didn't rely on the government to pay its bills they would of been within their right to discriminate against a customer based solely on their race. Not so much today. Any way let's look at the ruling.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the Court concluded that the restaurant, as a recipient of assistance by the parking authority, benefited from the city's aid and constituted an financially integral and indispensable part of the state. As such, the Court found that the restaurant and the parking authority were so physically and financially intertwined that the private entity's conduct could be imputed to the government. Thus, it’s discrimination could be considered state action in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Customers have Constitutional protections that guests on private property do not. Today it wouldn't matter if they were a private entity or not you can't deny anyone service based on their race.

it's obvious you didn't read them.....but with that said, a State Actor can't violate the Constitutional rights of employees either.

It's quite obvious you didn't read them or understand the difference between customers, employees and guests.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The cult fucks are all in for the DNC.

Its amazing. They love fascism.

The government cannot tellprivate companies who to censor. That is a 1A violation.

The marxist cult fucks love censorship. They hate freedom.

 

[struth]

That doesnt mean you correctly assessed them.

Why is discrimination against a black man a fun fact?

Did you read and understand the particulars of that case?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

In August 1958 William H. Burton, an African American, entered the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, a restaurant leasing space within a parking garage operated by the Wilmington Parking Authority, and was denied service solely because of his race. The Parking Authority is a tax-exempt, private corporation created by legislative action of the City of Wilmington for the purpose of operating the city's parking facilities, and its construction projects are partially funded by contributions from the city. The Parking Authority provided the restaurant heating and gas services and maintained the premises at its own expense.

This was 1958 where if they had been a completely private entity that didn't rely on the government to pay its bills they would of been within their right to discriminate against a customer based solely on their race. Not so much today. Any way let's look at the ruling.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the Court concluded that the restaurant, as a recipient of assistance by the parking authority, benefited from the city's aid and constituted an financially integral and indispensable part of the state. As such, the Court found that the restaurant and the parking authority were so physically and financially intertwined that the private entity's conduct could be imputed to the government. Thus, it’s discrimination could be considered state action in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Customers have Constitutional protections that guests on private property do not. Today it wouldn't matter if they were a private entity or not you can't deny anyone service based on their race.

It's quite obvious you didn't read them or understand the difference between customers, employees and guests.

1) of course I did...I literally quoted from the opinions
2) it's not...but it's certainly funny you got caught not reading them, because you claimed they were about employees...he wasn't one.
3) yes I did, that's why I knew it wasn't an employee- employer case, it was about the State Actor Doctrine, and the Count found that private company was in fact a state actor, and thus couldn't violate his rights. what part of that don't you get? you literally quoted what I did, where the court said the private company was a State Actor.

Customers are guest...geez....this case is a State Actor Doctrine case....

 

[Marener]

No, it changes nothing....I literally cited the case to review. When applying the black letter law to what the FBI did with tweeter, it's clear the tweeter was a state actor, that was violating the rights of citizens by censoring political speech.

Once again though, it's moot at this point, the Demafascist ran the company in the ground and were forced to sell.

History is littered with cases alleging and failing to reach state doctrine status.

It’s only clear to the world’s worst lawyer like yourself.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Hey cult fucks.

Just pretend it was the RNC telling social media platforms who to ban.

Now you see the problem…

See how easy that is?

 

[Curried Goats]

To be truthful, you'd have to state in those terms of service that only viewpoints acceptable to the party are allowed.

You should read them some time. They're worded in a way that allows sites like this to ban you if they wish.

Nope, if you run ads for a candidate, you're making a donation.

You understand that as a private entity I can support and donate to whomever I choose don't you? If I put a Joe Biden flag in my front yard I'm not violating your rights because I don't invite you over to tell me how great Trump is.

If you give a candidate free access to your private property, you're making a donation.

So take my Joe Biden flag scenario. Tell me what rights you think you now have on my property because I planted a Biden flag in my yard.

Technically, if you simply say to your neighbor that you like a candidate, you're making a donation. Of course, you're not going to get in trouble for it, but if you're a multi-billion-dollar company that reaches millions of people and you use your platform to suppress messages favoring other candidates while promoting messages favoring yours, you are making a substantial donation.

Technically it's only an issue if you are selling ad time. Facebook and Twitter have to comply with those rules for ads that pop up on their site, what you post is not their content they just host it and they don't have to give you equal time.

 

[Curried Goats]

1) of course I did...I literally quoted from the opinions
2) it's not...but it's certainly funny you got caught not reading them, because you claimed they were about employees...he wasn't one.

I claimed one was about an employee because it was. This one was about a customer. Neither of those two things is the same as being a guest.

3) yes I did, that's why I knew it wasn't an employee- employer case, it was about the State Actor Doctrine, and the Count found that private company was in fact a state actor, and thus couldn't violate his rights.

Couldnt violate the customers rights.

what part of that don't you get? you literally quoted what I did, where the court said the private company was a State Actor.

What part of customer do you not get?

Customers are guest...geez....this case is a State Actor Doctrine case....

No. Customers are not guests. You are not Facebooks customer. Facebook allows you to use their service for free so they can sell your information to their actual costumers.

 

[Curried Goats]

Hey cult fucks.

Just pretend it was the RNC telling social media platforms who to ban.

Now you see the problem…

See how easy that is?

No. Still don't.

 

[Marener]

See how easy that is?

Why don’t you stick to what actually happened and not your lies.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Imagine a world where the cult holds themselves to the standard they hold others.