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

[Curried Goats]

And that is completely true until the government coordinates with the entity to censor speech. That's an in-kind campaign contribution when a candidate does it, censorship when the government does it and should be dealt with as such.

If I use my private property to host a club that I invite people to join and the FBI comes and suggests to me that some topic or another is dangerous and I shouldn't allow it at my private club and I start banning people from talking about it at my private club, you think that's a violation of your rights? You have no right to talk at all at my club. You don't suddenly gain one because I have a friendly relationship with the FBI. That is my right. You don't like the rules on my private property you can fuck right on off.

 

[Marener]

you really never heard of rhe state actor doctrine in constitutional law? wow

Absolutely. And this is a doctrine that has very little reason to believe has been met in this case.

This conservative Supreme Court has been especially reluctant to turn private enterprise into state actors by casual connection alone.

Overextending state actor doctrine would sweep up massive numbers of people into its scope and deprive them unwittingly and unintentionally of many constructional rights.

 

[Marener]

What do you call it when the government coordinates with a private entity to establish a narrative, but neither discloses that relationship? If it's done during a campaign, I call it an in-kind campaign contribution.

I call it protected speech. Otherwise Fox News would have a lot of explaining to do considering how closely Trump’s administration and campaigned were aligned with them.

 

[struth]

Absolutely. And this is a doctrine that has very little reason to believe has been met in this case.

This conservative Supreme Court has been especially reluctant to turn private enterprise into state actors by casual connection alone.

Overextending state actor doctrine would sweep up massive numbers of people into its scope and deprive them unwittingly and unintentionally of many constructional rights.

hahah overextending? (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)); , but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action.

It is rather moot at this point, since the demafascit have been run out of Twitter....so I don't think they'll be any case. Musk has exposed the Demafascist though

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The demented LEFT "suspends the Constitution" and then accuse Trump of doing that very thing.
Typical PROJECTION from the communist retards.

They learned well from Mr. Alinsky.


.

 

[rightwinger]

That is untrue...look up State Actor Doctrine.

 

[rightwinger]

They learned well from Mr. Alinsky.


.

Nobody but Conservatives have heard of or read Alinsky

 

[Marener]

but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action.

You didn’t accurately reflect the text or even reference the case that actually made this argument (your case is about funding and regulation).

This is the actual text:
State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State

 

[Oldestyle]

No professional soldier would follow Trump anywhere. Those fellas took an oath. Folks like you see above and those who post here from the right are easily persuaded to do things that are not in their best interest. The guy above is a poster child for all that is left of the MAGA movement.

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?

 

[Curried Goats]

ok, so you really don't know what the state actor doctrine means...gotcha.

No I got you you dumb bitch. Thank you for finally being brave enough to give examples of what you think applies in this instance. Let's look at them.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288 (2001

"The nominally private character of the Association is overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings, and there is no substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying constitutional standards to it."[12] Part of the basis for this determination were historical statements by the Tennessee Board of Education, which had granted regulatory authority to the association and recognition of its own independent authority. For example, the Board explicitly approved the TSSAA's rules and reserved the right to continuously review them in the future. Further, employees at the association were given state pensions. Because the association could essentially "coerce" the member schools to follow its rules and the state would back it up, it was using state police power.[13] Therefore, Souter concluded, the restrictions on denial of due process would apply to the association, and the lawsuit could proceed in the lower courts"

In this case the Association had regulatory powers over public schools. Public schools. Not private property. Of course the public has an interest in the regulation of public schools.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)

Also, a close symbiosis was noted between retail businesses having nearby parking and a garage being close to shopping opportunities to the point that they were a "joint participant." Based on the close interplay between the government and the company, the court found that the exclusion of black customers was a violation even though no government agency was directly discriminating: "the exclusion of appellant under the circumstances shown to be present here was discriminatory state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

(Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)); , but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action

The plaintives lost this case and here's a little bit of the decision written by the court:

The school was founded as a private institution and is operated by a board of directors, none of whom are public officials or are chosen by public officials.

 

[hadit]

If I use my private property to host a club that I invite people to join and the FBI comes and suggests to me that some topic or another is dangerous and I shouldn't allow it at my private club and I start banning people from talking about it at my private club, you think that's a violation of your rights? You have no right to talk at all at my club. You don't suddenly gain one because I have a friendly relationship with the FBI. That is my right. You don't like the rules on my private property you can fuck right on off.

First place you're wrong. Use of social media platforms is not by invitation only. That basically voids the rest of your argument. If you say your club is open to everyone, then kick out anyone not aligned with the local bigwig, you're lying.

But, if I:

1. Use my private property to host a club that I openly advertise is open to all.
2. Meet privately with the FBI (who is headed by someone appointed by a member of a political party) during a political campaign season.
3. Take direction from the FBI about which viewpoints I will allow to be discussed, and those viewpoints favor the political party that appointed the head of the FBI.
4. Ban members from my club that express viewpoints unfavorable to the party in question.

I'm giving an in-kind donation to the party and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Curried Goats]

hahah overextending? (Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)); , but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action.

It is rather moot at this point, since the demafascit have been run out of Twitter....so I don't think they'll be any case. Musk has exposed the Demafascist though

In this instance the government would be coercing them to fire an employee. An employee has legal protections in a way you, as guest of Facebook and Twitter do not.

 

[Curried Goats]

First place you're wrong. Use of social media platforms is not by invitation only. That basically voids the rest of your argument. If you say your club is open to everyone, then kick out anyone not aligned with the local bigwig, you're lying.

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

But, if I:

1. Use my private property to host a club that I openly advertise is open to all.
2. Meet privately with the FBI (who is headed by someone appointed by a member of a political party) during a political campaign season.
3. Take direction from the FBI about which viewpoints I will allow to be discussed, and those viewpoints favor the political party that appointed the head of the FBI.
4. Ban members from my club that express viewpoints unfavorable to the party in question.

I'm giving an in-kind donation to the party and should be dealt with accordingly.

No, you are exercising your first amendment rights.

 

[struth]

You didn’t accurately reflect the text or even reference the case that actually made this argument (your case is about funding and regulation).

This is the actual text:
State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State

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

 

[Frankenstein]

Didn't take long for the Democrat truth deniers to show up, did it?

Each spewing the exact talking points the left has been using

 

[struth]

In this instance the government would be coercing them to fire an employee. An employee has legal protections in a way you, as guest of Facebook and Twitter do not.

The FBI was coercing the company to censor political speech...making Tweeter a State Actor....in true Demafascit fashion, and thus violating the rights of the people that used it

 

[Curried Goats]

The FBI was coercing the company to censor political speech...making Tweeter a State Actor....in true Demafascit fashion, and thus violating the rights of the people that used it

You missed the point about the ruling and different rights guests have on private property as opposed to employees of businesses. Do you recognize those differences or are you still confused?

 

[struth]

No I got you you dumb bitch. Thank you for finally being brave enough to give examples of what you think applies in this instance. Let's look at them.

In this case the Association had regulatory powers over public schools. Public schools. Not private property. Of course the public has an interest in the regulation of public schools.

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 plaintives lost this case and here's a little bit of the decision written by the court:

The school was founded as a private institution and is operated by a board of directors, none of whom are public officials or are chosen by public officials.

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

 

[struth]

You missed the point about the ruling and different rights guests have on private property as opposed to employees of businesses.

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

 

[Curried Goats]

1) Yes, the Association was a private intity that had been given powers through it's close connection to the Govt...like Tweeter

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

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

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