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

[Care4all]

1) Yes, the Association was a private intity that had been given powers through it's close connection to the Govt...like Tweeter
2) ok. it was just another example
3) yes, they lost, but the Court broke down the rule for the doctrine, which as I highlighted was what happened with the FBI and their fascist relationship with Tweeter to censor speech damaging to the Xiden admin

You do realize that under the Trump admin, homeland security, and the FBI and Cyber Security and Election Integrity divisions were ALL TASKED with election security after the Russian infiltration of social media in 2016 trying to influence the 2016 election?

And that congress ripped social media a new butt hole for it, in their hearings on it? And social media all wanted some help from government on what to expect in Russian or any foreign interference....where I've told you or Nostra previously..... And it is when the Trump admin came up with these information meetings?


This has been known, is no surprise, the Trump admin said it was going to happen and be a step up in security against foreign Illegal influence in the next upcoming election.....

I have no problem investigating it, to be certain it meets constitutionality.... as it stands, until shot down by the courts, it does....but we should know soon enough, from the courts on it, one way or the other.

 

[struth]

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

I provided a number of landmark cases were it was reached.

so, he's allowed to have friends and be interviewed by a news outlet.

 

[Curried Goats]

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

You don't have first amendment protected speech on Twitter. The court ruled that what was violated was his right to service. You don't seem to understand the case at all. You are so focused on the State Actor portion that you've lost sight of the other relevant material.

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

And if you built your own server and created your own website and the FBI came and shut you down you'd have a point but again, you have no right to free speech protection on someone else's property.

 

[struth]

You do realize that under the Trump admin, homeland security, and the FBI and Cyber Security and Election Integrity divisions were ALL TASKED with election security after the Russian infiltration of social media in 2016 trying to influence the 2016 election?

And that congress ripped social media a new butt hole for it, in their hearings on it? And social media all wanted some help from government on what to expect in Russian or any foreign interference....where I've told you or Nostra previously..... And it is when the Trump admin came up with these information meetings?


This has been known, is no surprise, the Trump admin said it was going to happen and be a step up in security against foreign Illegal influence in the next upcoming election.....

I have no problem investigating it, to be certain it meets constitutionality.... as it stands, until shot down by the courts, it does....but we should know soon enough, from the courts on it, one way or the other.

1) yes and they did a much better job then Obama.
2) Hunter's laptop story wasn't Russian...it exist, it was real.

 

[Marener]

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

And then spread LIES about it being Russian disinformation?

They didn’t.

 

[Marener]

I provided a number of landmark cases were it was reached.

Yes, but those cases showed far more connection with the state.

Not just “weekly meetings”.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, but those cases showed far more connection with the state.

Not just “weekly meetings”.

And none of them were about guests. In one the state violated a right to not be denied service based on race and in the other the plaintives lost because the court ruled they had no right to free speech from their private employer. It's a failure all around for that guy.

 

[struth]

You don't have first amendment protected speech on Twitter. The court ruled that what was violated was his right to service. You don't seem to understand the case at all. You are so focused on the State Actor portion that you've lost sight of the other relevant material.

And if you built your own server and created your own website and the FBI came and shut you down you'd have a point but again, you have no right to free speech protection on someone else's property.

1) you do if they are a State Actor. I am not sure what case you are refering to the Court ruling...this information was just made public Friday via Musk.

2) of couse you do when a private company is a State Actor. Again, though it's all moot sense the prior demafasict owners no longer run the company. The only issue moving forward really, legally speaking, is if the Xiden campaign was also involved. That's TBD.

 

[struth]

Yes, but those cases showed far more connection with the state.

Not just “weekly meetings”.

I have to disagree.

 

[candycorn]

the Big Guy has a house in Wilmington. Hunter was there for business with the boss.

Sounds rather ridiculous.

Back when I lived in Texas and my grandfather lived in South Carolina, I didn't drop off dry cleaning in Columbia.

 

[candycorn]

I come from a military family moron, every generation going back to the Civil War when my people got off the boat from Scotland has had one or more people serving.

In the confederacy? Because that is the 2021 equivalent to actually serving.

I know what the fuck I'm talking about and the Pentagon went on a witch hunt looking for "right wing" extremist.

I'm sure they did. And the ones they found were shown the door.

If Trump wanted to start a coup he could have instead it was a riot, like the thousands of riots across the country that you lunatics supported.

I don't recall a bunch of banners in the BLM riots supporting a candidate.

By the way I have made it clear many times on this site that I am no fan of Trump but loons like yourself think that anyone that disagrees with your fucked up logic must support him.

I do love how quickly the right wing tosses someone under the bus. You're like the 12th guy who sucked his dick for 4 years suddenly stating, "I never liked that Trump".

Fuck off.

 

[candycorn]

You do know that the Biden's have a home in Delaware ?

So?

If someone were to bring a laptop to you and it had kiddie porn on it; would you make copies for yourself and set yourself up for multiple felonies?

Because that is what you guys believed happened.

 

[candycorn]

Um, the Biden’s are from Delaware. They have homes there, Dumbass.

So?

 

[candycorn]

Since you seem to believe that Candy I've got a suggestion! How about we decide our elections by only having the military be eligible to vote in a rematch between Trump and Biden? Hmmm?

Well, that is a rather bizarre and not surprisingly idiotic suggestion. I'm not surprised you're the one who came up with it.

 

[struth]

Sounds rather ridiculous.

Back when I lived in Texas and my grandfather lived in South Carolina, I didn't drop off dry cleaning in Columbia.

Well, the Big Guy isn't his grandfather.....and moreover at the time of this, they maintained a family estate in Delaware. When you are getting kick backs from foreign nations, like China, you can afford different homes.

 

[Marener]

I have to disagree.

I know you disagree because you are highly biased to believe so.

Weekly meetings is an extremely low bar. It would be totally irrational to say that’s sufficient to make them state actors, especially without detailed knowledge of what was discussed.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Was it to censor political speech or remove lies, propaganda and misinformation?

Who decides what is what?
You are comfortable with a handful of bureaucrats deciding what Americans can and can't see?
Does that sound like a free country to you?
What is propaganda? You think it is something new? You think the sitting administration, whatever party they are, has the right to control what the opposing voice is allowed to be seen?
This is a country you want?
Where government agents decide what information you can see and not see?

really? that is your argument?

 

[Curried Goats]

1) you do if they are a State Actor. I am not sure what case you are refering to the Court ruling...this information was just made public Friday via Musk.

You are only looking at one thing, the evil State Actor. The question remains what right of yours is the evil State Actor violating? In the first case it was the right to not be denied service. In the other case the plaintives alleged that because of funding the private school was in effect a public school and so they would be acting as a State Actor and the state can't violate your first amendment rights. They lost that case because you have no first amendment right at a private place of employment where no one from the government is making any firing or hiring decisions.

Do you recognize that you have no first amendment rights on someone else's property? And that you don't suddenly get any because they decide to work with law enforcement? Facebook can't be said to be violating your first amendment rights as a State Actor if no one from the state forced Facebook to do anything because you have no first amendment rights on Facebook. Facebook chose themselves to limit content just like the entity in the last case chose themselves to fire those employees over their speech. If the FBI tried to strong arming Facebook into limiting your content that would be a violation of Facebook's rights, not yours.

2) of couse you do when a private company is a State Actor. Again, though it's all moot sense the prior demafasict owners no longer run the company. The only issue moving forward really, legally speaking, is if the Xiden campaign was also involved. That's TBD.

You don't seem to know....

 

[struth]

I know you disagree because you are highly biased to believe so.

Weekly meetings is an extremely low bar. It would be totally irrational to say that’s sufficient to make them state actors, especially without detailed knowledge of what was discussed.

Nah, I just follow the law...the bias folks are the ones like youself that simply ignore it.

Really? You know a lot of companies meeting weekly with the FBI during a campaign season to censor unflattering stories about Biden? Show me.

 

[rightwinger]

Who decides what is what?
You are comfortable with a handful of bureaucrats deciding what Americans can and can't see?
Does that sound like a free country to you?
What is propaganda? You think it is something new? You think the sitting administration, whatever party they are, has the right to control what the opposing voice is allowed to be seen?
This is a country you want?
Where government agents decide what information you can see and not see?

really? that is your argument?

A private site can decide what wild claims they will accept