Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but you're utterly refusing to quote them saying that.

You're a proven liar and it appears you're reluctant to quote them because you're lying again.

Wrong. I posted the lawsuit where the claimed they were exempt because they were a common carrier.

In which post did you include that?

 

[bripat9643]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

Freedom of speech? Well, as you know that is not unlimited. Regardless though, Facebook is free to say whatever they want...just like AT&T...what they can't do is discriminate against consumers, and aren't above being regulated Public health is very important, but so is commerce v communication...hence why we regulate it as well.

Nothing is even keeping Facebook from banning someone, they can...all the law requires is that they be transparent about it.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

They can ban people, as long as they comply with the law. They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to. Can AT&T refuse to allow Dems to use their phone serves? Should they be allowed to?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident ******* moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

Says the facts, douchebag. You are referring to the difference between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says.

LOLOL

******* moron, it appears you lack the knowledge of the role they play in terms of the Constitution.

Needless to say, their opinions matter. Yours? Not at all.

Whatever role they play, facts are facts. There is no language in the Constitution about protected classes.

 

[kaz]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

 

[Faun]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

Freedom of speech? Well, as you know that is not unlimited. Regardless though, Facebook is free to say whatever they want...just like AT&T...what they can't do is discriminate against consumers, and aren't above being regulated Public health is very important, but so is commerce v communication...hence why we regulate it as well.

Nothing is even keeping Facebook from banning someone, they can...all the law requires is that they be transparent about it.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

They can ban people, as long as they comply with the law. They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to. Can AT&T refuse to allow Dems to use their phone serves? Should they be allowed to?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident ******* moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

Says the facts, douchebag. You are referring to the difference between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says.

LOLOL

******* moron, it appears you lack the knowledge of the role they play in terms of the Constitution.

Needless to say, their opinions matter. Yours? Not at all.

Whatever role they play, facts are facts. There is no language in the Constitution about protected classes.

******* moron, there's no language in the Constitution about an air force either. According to your retardedness, the air force must therefore be unconstitutional.

 

[Faun]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

 

[bripat9643]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

Freedom of speech? Well, as you know that is not unlimited. Regardless though, Facebook is free to say whatever they want...just like AT&T...what they can't do is discriminate against consumers, and aren't above being regulated Public health is very important, but so is commerce v communication...hence why we regulate it as well.

Nothing is even keeping Facebook from banning someone, they can...all the law requires is that they be transparent about it.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

They can ban people, as long as they comply with the law. They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to. Can AT&T refuse to allow Dems to use their phone serves? Should they be allowed to?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident ******* moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

Says the facts, douchebag. You are referring to the difference between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says.

LOLOL

******* moron, it appears you lack the knowledge of the role they play in terms of the Constitution.

Needless to say, their opinions matter. Yours? Not at all.

Whatever role they play, facts are facts. There is no language in the Constitution about protected classes.

******* moron, there's no language in the Constitution about an air force either. According to your retardedness, the air force must therefore be unconstitutional.

The airforce is obviously just an extension of the Army or Navy.

 

[bripat9643]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

 

[Faun]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

Freedom of speech? Well, as you know that is not unlimited. Regardless though, Facebook is free to say whatever they want...just like AT&T...what they can't do is discriminate against consumers, and aren't above being regulated Public health is very important, but so is commerce v communication...hence why we regulate it as well.

Nothing is even keeping Facebook from banning someone, they can...all the law requires is that they be transparent about it.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

They can ban people, as long as they comply with the law. They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to. Can AT&T refuse to allow Dems to use their phone serves? Should they be allowed to?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident ******* moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

Says the facts, douchebag. You are referring to the difference between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says.

LOLOL

******* moron, it appears you lack the knowledge of the role they play in terms of the Constitution.

Needless to say, their opinions matter. Yours? Not at all.

Whatever role they play, facts are facts. There is no language in the Constitution about protected classes.

******* moron, there's no language in the Constitution about an air force either. According to your retardedness, the air force must therefore be unconstitutional.

The airforce is obviously just an extension of the Army or Navy.

Nope, not anymore.

Are you ever not a ******* moron?

Ever??

 

[Faun]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

 

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but you're utterly refusing to quote them saying that.

You're a proven liar and it appears you're reluctant to quote them because you're lying again.

Wrong. I posted the lawsuit where the claimed they were exempt because they were a common carrier.

In which post did you include that?

I think I see why ******* moron didn't respond to this post of mine. ******* moron, is this the lawsuit of which you speak...?

Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic. ******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms? What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation. And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[bripat9643]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

I posted the OP, jackass.

 

[bripat9643]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but you're utterly refusing to quote them saying that.

You're a proven liar and it appears you're reluctant to quote them because you're lying again.

Wrong. I posted the lawsuit where the claimed they were exempt because they were a common carrier.

In which post did you include that?

I think I see why ******* moron didn't respond to this post of mine. ******* moron, is this the lawsuit of which you speak...?

Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic. ******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms? What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation. And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation...

www.usmessageboard.com

NO, asshole.

 

[struth]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

 

[Faun]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

I posted the OP, jackass.

So? Were you expecting a cookie?

 

[struth]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

How does forcing Twitter to allow members to post whatever they want, enhance public safety?

I don't think it does, nor does this law require Twitter to do that.

Try again.

To be more precise, members who are running for public office. The law would allow Florida to fine Twitter for banning such members for more than 14 days.

Cool...seems reasonable to me.

 

[Faun]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but you're utterly refusing to quote them saying that.

You're a proven liar and it appears you're reluctant to quote them because you're lying again.

Wrong. I posted the lawsuit where the claimed they were exempt because they were a common carrier.

In which post did you include that?

I think I see why ******* moron didn't respond to this post of mine. ******* moron, is this the lawsuit of which you speak...?

Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic. ******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms? What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation. And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation...

www.usmessageboard.com

NO, asshole.

Then which lawsuit? Why are you too embarrassed to tell me now?

 

[meaner gene]

Whatever role they play, facts are facts. There is no language in the Constitution about protected classes.

******* moron, there's no language in the Constitution about an air force either. According to your retardedness, the air force must therefore be unconstitutional.

Your point is a much better than his. Since under the constitution powers are enumerated, and when so done, those not enumerated, are excluded. So the president is commander in chief of the army and the navy and the militia when called into service. Which would exclude being c-in-c of any other military forces the US may have.
The president would remain the chief executive over them, but not have commander-in-chiefs absolute authority.

Meanwhile as far as creating protected classes of people, that would be covered in the constitution under the "general welfare" clause.

The same way that social security, medicare, and welfare programs are not specifically in the constitution, but they're clearly constitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.

Democrats built a party on victimhood. Their whining about it is classic.

Democrats are Nazis.

Goebbles: Accuse others of what you are

That's Mustang and the Democrats

LOL

Now that's funny in a thread about how conservatives are victims.

The Democrat party is the victim party, so why aren't you attacking Democrats?

******* moron, see if you can pay attention for more than a nanosecond.... this thread is about conservative victimhood.

I posted the OP, jackass.

So? Were you expecting a cookie?

I sure wasn't expecting you to be embarassed about posting your idiocies.

 

[kaz]

And no, of course nothing is ever simple. That's a big part of why we have courts in the first place.

But in her case, she was well known where we lived and since my business was B2B it's a far smaller community than B2C. Her bashing Planned Parenthood would have been really, really hard not to come back on the company. Again, she didn't do that, just hypothetical.

But again, while what you say is reasonable, legally it comes down to the employment manual. I can pretty well restrict my employees social media activity, but I have to be very specific. The default is there is no restriction.

Believe it or not, I had to put in things to the point of they couldn't take cash out of the register for personal use without WRITTEN permission. Otherwise they can argue it was a verbally approved loan and it can be a lot harder to prosecute them. Same with computers and other company equipment. It's something the way it works

Admittedly, I don't live in a small town. I live in a big, anonymous city, where no one knows much of anyone.

I will agree that if you notified her of the requirements when she was hired - which it sounds like you did - and she agreed to them by accepting the job, that's a different matter.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean it was a small town. I meant the business community when your customers are businesses and not the general pubic is a lot smaller than retail businesses that serve the general public. Things tend to get around. My lead designer had been in the graphic design business a long time and a lot of people knew her.

But the bottom line is the employee manual is the critical thing. I tried to find a good employee manual to tweak and found none of them were very good. So I wrote one with the support of my employment attorney. She was really impressed, she said it was through and fair. Ironically I hired her because she was generally on the employee side. She was upfront with me about that when I hired her to represent the business.

I wanted NOT to have problems with my employees, I wanted them to be clear what my expectations were. So I wrote the employee manual to be clear, reasonable and fair. My employment lawyer agreed it was all of those and I never got a complaint about it from my employees. They all said it was very clear and they understood what was expected of them. That was the goal.

People don't realize when they start a business how important the employee manual is and they don't prioritize it. Sometimes that burns them, sometimes not. But it's always a risk if you don't do it right

 

[struth]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

Freedom of speech? Well, as you know that is not unlimited. Regardless though, Facebook is free to say whatever they want...just like AT&T...what they can't do is discriminate against consumers, and aren't above being regulated Public health is very important, but so is commerce v communication...hence why we regulate it as well.

Nothing is even keeping Facebook from banning someone, they can...all the law requires is that they be transparent about it.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

They can ban people, as long as they comply with the law. They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to. Can AT&T refuse to allow Dems to use their phone serves? Should they be allowed to?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

(a)Charges, services, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

ANY CLASS OF PERSON.