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

[struth]

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.

Ok....but this is a specific case. Not sure what your point is...

 

[scruffy]

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

FBI met => WEEKLY <= with Big Tech.

 

[Marener]

I

Ok....but this is a specific case. Not sure what your point is...

My point is that state actor is extremely hard to prove in court.

You think it’s clear because you’re ignorant and biased.

 

[Marener]

FBI met => WEEKLY <= with Big Tech.

And?

 

[struth]

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.

Couldnt violate the customers rights.

What part of customer do you not get?

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.

Being a guest isn't relevant to the State Actor Doctrine. Not the State any it's actors can't violate anyone's rights.....

Customers aren't relevant to if the State or it's Actors violate and individual constitutional rights. Nowhere in the State Actor Doctrine doesn't it limit it to customers...or employees/

 

[struth]

I

My point is that state actor is extremely hard to prove in court.

You think it’s clear because you’re ignorant and biased.

I never said it was easy....but this seems like a clear cut case. With that said it's moot since the offenders no longer own the company.

The real question moving forward, was did the Xiden campaign actually ask Tweeter and was this done at their request as well? That could be an issue. Not sure if that's what happened or not

 

[struth]

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

Agreed.

 

[struth]

And?

Weekly? Starts to show there was a "symbiotic relationship" between the State and the company to shut down political speech damaging to Xiden.

 

[Marener]

I never said it was easy....but this seems like a clear cut case. With that said it's moot since the offenders no longer own the company.

The real question moving forward, was did the Xiden campaign actually ask Tweeter and was this done at their request as well? That could be an issue. Not sure if that's what happened or not

It’s not clear at all. It’s only clear to you because you’re biased. You’d already made up your mind.

Trump was heavily involved in encouraging Fox News coverage as well, I guess they’re now a state actor too.

 

[Marener]

Weekly? Starts to show there was a "symbiotic relationship" between the State and the company to shut down political speech damaging to Xiden.

It doesn’t. There’s nothing there that suggests the purpose was to shut down political speech damaging to Biden.

You always fabricate facts to support allegations.

 

[Curried Goats]

Being a guest isn't relevant to the State Actor Doctrine. Not the State any it's actors can't violate anyone's rights.....

It was relevant to the case you cited and the question remains a violation of what rights? In the case you cited in was the right to not be denied service based on race. That is a constitutionally protected right. You do not have a constitutionally protected right to be someone's guest.

Customers aren't relevant to if the State or it's Actors violate and individual constitutional rights. Nowhere in the State Actor Doctrine doesn't it limit it to customers...or employees/

It limits it to people with relevant rights that are being violated. In the first case it was the right to not be denied service in the other it was about freedom of speech but the plaintives lost because while the government can't violate their employees right to free speech you have no right to free speech on your employers dime if they are a private entity and the court ruled that in this case the government was sufficiently removed from the decision.

 

[scruffy]

It doesn’t. There’s nothing there that suggests the purpose was to shut down political speech damaging to Biden.

Horseshit. You're a total fucking liar. Not surprised.

You always fabricate facts to support allegations.

Look in the mirror, fucktard.

 

[Marener]

Horseshit. You're a total fucking liar. Not surprised.

Great. If I’m a liar, let’s see the facts that support it.

If you’re the liar, you won’t be able to.

 

[struth]

It’s not clear at all. It’s only clear to you because you’re biased. You’d already made up your mind.

Trump was heavily involved in encouraging Fox News coverage as well, I guess they’re now a state actor too.

1) Nope, it's only unclear to you, because you are bias, and a demafascit and think this sort of thing is ok.
2) oh yeah? show me some proof that Trump did that.

 

[jc456]

It looks like you already provided the pathetic spin.

what was his spin exactly?

 

[jc456]

FBI warning of Russian disinformation is what was reported.

and that in itself was misinformation, right? That's called lying.

 

[struth]

It was relevant to the case you cited and the question remains a violation of what rights? In the case you cited in was the right to not be denied service based on race. That is a constitutionally protected right. You do not have a constitutionally protected right to be someone's guest.

It limits it to people with relevant rights that are being violated. In the first case it was the right to not be denied service in the other it was about freedom of speech but the plaintives lost because while the government can't violate your right to free speech you have no right to free speech on your employers dime and the court ruled that in this case the government was sufficiently removed from the decision.

1) no, it was no at all revelvant...the case was about state actor doctrine, not employee or customers. Correct that is a Constitutional protected right, and the Court found the private company was a State actor, and thus in violation of that right. I have a first amendment right, to protected political speech....the State Actor (tweeter) violated that right
2) The State can't violate anyone's rights with out Due Process...please review the State Actor Doctrine....that's what we have been discussing, and you continue to ignore with red herrings about employees and customers

 

[Marener]

1) Nope, it's only unclear to you, because you are bias, and a demafascit and think this sort of thing is ok.
2) oh yeah? show me some proof that Trump did that.

The message you should have gotten from reviewing dozens of cases is that state actor doctrine is rarely reached. Never before has a social media platform met the standard and there’s no evidence of coercion or significant pressure being applied.

Trump was in constant contact with Sean Hannity and openly met with executives at Fox News.

Trump Plans to Meet With Fox News’ Ailes

Candidate says he’s boycotting network over ‘unfair coverage’

www.nexttv.com

 

[scruffy]

Great. If I’m a liar, let’s see the facts that support it.

If you’re the liar, you won’t be able to.

Damn you're FUCKING STUPID.

Why else would the FBI disappear Hunter Biden's laptop?

And then spread LIES about it being Russian disinformation?

They're protecting the president. Double fuckin duh.

 

[jc456]

1) no, it was no at all revelvant...the case was about state actor doctrine, not employee or customers. Correct that is a Constitutional protected right, and the Court found the private company was a State actor, and thus in violation of that right. I have a first amendment right, to protected political speech....the State Actor (tweeter) violated that right
2) The State can't violate anyone's rights with out Due Process...please review the State Actor Doctrine....that's what we have been discussing, and you continue to ignore with red herrings about employees and customers

well again, if what I heard about musk having emails from government employees telling them to censor people, that is a violation of the first amendment. That's what will be litigated.