More nonsense. The right to vote is a Constitutional right. There is no such Constitutional right regarding voicing political opinions outside of the government's purview.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment
- Thread starter pyetro
- Start date
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view."{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
...}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
More idiocies
The FCC is a government agency and therefore not Constitutionally allowed to prevent free speech. How many times does it need to be explained that barring public safety, the government cannot prevent free speech; but private business can. And Twitter is a private business.
Not to mention, Impeached Trump was inciting and encouraging violence on Twitter. That's a threat to public safety.
Impeached Trump is likely Constitutionally ineligible to run for president again.{...
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
...
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.
(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –
(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.
(f) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States.
(2) The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
...}
Whether or not Trump is a future candidate is unclear, but obviously the point of this is to prevent political discrimination.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
There's no federal protections from discrimination for political belief. And Twitter can and does enforce its own TOS.
Trump was banned for violating the TOS he had agreed to abide. WIth Twitter being the sole arbitrator of that TOS.
Not you. You keep inserting your personal opinion as a legal authority. And it never is.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.
The baker making the wedding cake was subject to STATE laws. Not federal ones. Your ignorance is astounding.
You don't even understand the difference between state and federal, citing STATE laws as examples of FEDERAL protections. There are no LGBT federal protections from discrimination, just as there are no federal protections from discrimination for political belief.
Which is why LGBT folks can be discriminated against in States with no protections against such discrimination.
And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.
Between a STATE and an individual. Not between individuals. It was Griswold v. Connecticut. With the Supreme Court finding that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT was limited by the Bill of Rights restrictions.
Not individuals. The absurdity of your entire argument is demonstrated in even the name of the case you're citing.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Your ignorance is astounding!
Do you understand that federal governments, state governments, municipal governments, etc., are NOT the source of law?
If they were, we would not be calling the US a democratic republic.
It would be an arbitrary dictatorship instead.
The POINT is that if there can be a law, federal, state, or local, it is because the general abstract principle has already always existed. Like murder and rape are illegal. Murder and rape are not illegal due to legislation, but the other way around. They are inherently illegal because they infringe upon the inherent rights of others, which then justifies the legislation.
So if there is a federal law restricting states from violating some inherent right of individuals, that is proof the inherent right exists, so then NO level of government can then legally violated it either. And that obviously has to also include other individuals. What kind of inherent right would it be if it was only recognized by governments, and any ordinary person could violate it at will. Obviously that is just plain silly.
Once you have discovered an inherent right, no one is allowed to violate it unless necessary in order to protect some other right. The whole point of a democratic republic is the defense of inherent individual rights, and the means of compromising between them when there are conflict.
The whole point of Griswold as an example, that the SCOTUS ruled based on privacy that has no statues or legislation at all, but is ONLY just a presumed inherent right. So your whole preconception of looking for legislation is totally backwards and upside down. Lots of rights, such as privacy, freedom of political expression, etc., are not in legislation because they are so basic their main consideration when they prevent new legislation from being written that might infringe upon them. But that does not mean other individuals have ever been allowed to infringe.
Nor do you understand the hierarchy of the Internet. While providers have a duty to censor illegal posts, the FCC is above the providers and had the duty of ensuring providers do not violate individual rights. Twitter does not implement the internet, so does not get to set the rules for the internet. The FCC does. And political discrimination is illegal. You said it yourself that the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government, so then the federal government is prohibited from allowing a provider like Twitter that the FCC empowers, from infringing upon political expression. If the FCC allowed Twitter to discriminate, then the FCC would also be guilty of political discrimination. So the FCC can't allow Twitter to do that.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view."{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
...}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
More idiocies
The FCC is a government agency and therefore not Constitutionally allowed to prevent free speech. How many times does it need to be explained that barring public safety, the government cannot prevent free speech; but private business can. And Twitter is a private business.
Not to mention, Impeached Trump was inciting and encouraging violence on Twitter. That's a threat to public safety.
Wrong. Twitter does not run the internet, the federal government does. So if people are having their political expressions censored, the FCC is then at fault for not protecting the internet like they are required to by law.
The FCC simply can not allow Twitter to censor political expression, or else the FCC would be in violation of the 1st amendment.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view."{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
...}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
More idiocies
The FCC is a government agency and therefore not Constitutionally allowed to prevent free speech. How many times does it need to be explained that barring public safety, the government cannot prevent free speech; but private business can. And Twitter is a private business.
Not to mention, Impeached Trump was inciting and encouraging violence on Twitter. That's a threat to public safety.
Show me proof that Trump was inciting violence?
I saw no illegal incitement to violence.
A demonstration with no weapons is just a sit-in, and is a time honored traditional means of political expression.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Impeached Trump is likely Constitutionally ineligible to run for president again.{...
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
...
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.
(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –
(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.
(f) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States.
(2) The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
...}
Whether or not Trump is a future candidate is unclear, but obviously the point of this is to prevent political discrimination.
Wrong again.
Impeachment without a conviction is essentially proof of innocence.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Trump used Twitter to encourage the rebellion.Forums like Twitter have the right to restrict discussion which is threat to public safety."See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”
Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.
One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.
It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?
Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.
Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.
This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.
Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.
Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.
There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.
And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.
Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.
Not you.
But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.
A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...
Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.
That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.
Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.
Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.
Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.
Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.
And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.
You seem to be totally ignorant of the whole concept of authority in a democratic republic, which is the defense of individual rights, and nothing else.
And political opinions are not a protected class.
And where was there ever any threat to public safety?
Twitter had nothing to do with the occupation of congress, nor is the occupation of congress any remote threat to public safety. The only threat came from the violent police.
And stop mentioning "protected classes".
That has almost nothing at all to do with individual protected rights.
For example, the right to vote.
It is illegal to prevent you from voting, and that has nothing at all to what class you may belong to.
Individual rights are an aspect of individuals, not classes.
The fact some individuals have joined together for additional protection, in no way implies individual rights to not exist as you imply.
A rebellion is an illegal use of deadly force in order to destroy the existing government.
There was nothing deadly about the occupation except the police over reaction, and it is not even illegal.
Citizens have a right to occupy public property as a protest.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
And if you'd bothered to read what you were citing, your ignorance is revealed in the first sentence.
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
Twitter isn't a broadcaster. Twitter isn't a television or radio station. It isn't broadcasting anything. Making your entire argument moot.....as it isn't subject to broadcast regulations.
If such were the case, all porn sites on the internet would illegal. And of course, they're not.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Ugh. Your argument is obviously wrong. Twice....}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
No where does it claim that the only way a broadcaster can limit topic is if its a danger to the public. You imagined that.
Second, Twitter isn't subject to broadcast regulations.....because it isn't broadcasting. Your own citation cites what is subject to broadcast regulation: TV and Radio. Neither of which Twitter is. And there are no such restrictions for banning on an internet page.
Twitter has every authority to set its own terms of service. And anyone who agrees to those terms can be banned for violating them.
The restrictions you insist Twitter must abide......that it can't ban anyone unless it proves they are a danger to the public, is just more imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up that obligates no one to do anything. Including Twitter.
Next strawman please.
Last edited:
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
{...
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
...
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.
(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –
(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.
(f) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States.
(2) The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
...}
Whether or not Trump is a future candidate is unclear, but obviously the point of this is to prevent political discrimination.
Twitter isn't a station. It doesn't have a broadcast license because it isn't broadcasting. Nor is it subject to broadcast regulation for the same reason.
Next strawman please.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
More nonsense. The right to vote is a Constitutional right. There is no such Constitutional right regarding voicing political opinions outside of the government's purview.And stop mentioning "protected classes".
That has almost nothing at all to do with individual protected rights.
For example, the right to vote.
It is illegal to prevent you from voting, and that has nothing at all to what class you may belong to.
Individual rights are an aspect of individuals, not classes.
The fact some individuals have joined together for additional protection, in no way implies individual rights to not exist as you imply.
Exactly. Rigby5 is laboring under the laughable assumption that the 14th amendment applies the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.....to individuals. Despite the 14th amendment never saying this. Nor the court having ever found this. Nor the writers of the 14th amendment indicating this was their intent.
Rigby just pulled the entire piece of pseudo-legal horseshit sideways out of his ass, citing only himself.
Then insists that Twitter is legally bound to his imagination.
Laughing.....nope!
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
There's no federal protections from discrimination for political belief. And Twitter can and does enforce its own TOS.
Trump was banned for violating the TOS he had agreed to abide. WIth Twitter being the sole arbitrator of that TOS.
Not you. You keep inserting your personal opinion as a legal authority. And it never is.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.
The baker making the wedding cake was subject to STATE laws. Not federal ones. Your ignorance is astounding.
You don't even understand the difference between state and federal, citing STATE laws as examples of FEDERAL protections. There are no LGBT federal protections from discrimination, just as there are no federal protections from discrimination for political belief.
Which is why LGBT folks can be discriminated against in States with no protections against such discrimination.
And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.
Between a STATE and an individual. Not between individuals. It was Griswold v. Connecticut. With the Supreme Court finding that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT was limited by the Bill of Rights restrictions.
Not individuals. The absurdity of your entire argument is demonstrated in even the name of the case you're citing.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Your ignorance is astounding!
Do you understand that federal governments, state governments, municipal governments, etc., are NOT the source of law?
You cited STATE law as defining FEDERAL protections. Which is blithering nonsense. As the law restricting the baker's discrimination against LGBT couples was a State law. Not a federal one. LGBT folks aren't a protected class under federal law. Thus, if there's no state law to protect them from discrimination, its entirely possible to legally discriminate them. And happens in states without such protections.
You're stuck at square one, confused and confounded by the difference between state and federal laws. You don't understand the difference. Demonstrating yet again that you're simply too ill informed to commently intelligently on the topic we're discussing.
Back in reality, Trump was banned from Twitter because he violated Twitter's terms of service. Killing your argument.
And political belief isn't a federally protected class. Killing your argument again.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
And if you'd bothered to read what you were citing, your ignorance is revealed in the first sentence.
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
Twitter isn't a broadcaster. Twitter isn't a television or radio station. It isn't broadcasting anything. Making your entire argument moot.....as it isn't subject to broadcast regulations.
If such were the case, all porn sites on the internet would illegal. And of course, they're not.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Ugh. Your argument is obviously wrong. Twice....}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
No where does it claim that the only way a broadcaster can limit topic is if its a danger to the public. You imagined that.
Second, Twitter isn't subject to broadcast regulations.....because it isn't broadcasting. Your own citation cites what is subject to broadcast regulation: TV and Radio. Neither of which Twitter is. And there are no such restrictions for banning on an internet page.
Twitter has every authority to set its own terms of service. And anyone who agrees to those terms can be banned for violating them.
The restrictions you insist Twitter must abide......that it can't ban anyone unless it proves they are a danger to the public, is just more imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up that obligates no one to do anything. Including Twitter.
Next strawman please.
Your statements are embarrassingly ignorant.
Of course Twitter is broadcasting.
The internet is a wide area network, WAN, which is broadcasting.
And Twitter even more so, because it is sharing posts with a large group of people.
As for your claim that porn sites would then be illegal if the internet were broadcasting, you are mixing up the term public with broadcasting. In the case of most public TV they broadcast and are public, but you can easily broadcast exclusively, like with encryption, so that it is not public, and therefore no restriction on on porn getting to underage.
Broadcast just means widely distributed, it does not mean it has to be done on public TV frequencies. It can be done over fiber optic, DSL, or any media. Broadcast can then also be private, like those who pay extra for HBO subscriptions.
The only time something is NOT broadcasting is when it is single point site to site.
In which case it effect no one else, so requires no FCC regulations other than to not interfere with other electronic devices.
The internet was originally designed and built for the military, and then later expanded for use by schools.
So the rules and regulations for the use of the Internet are very specific.
Providers to now own or run anything, so then have to follow the rules for public sharing.
Which totally and completely denies any political discrimination.
Twitter owns no part of the internet at all.
They are just renting bandwidth.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
And if you'd bothered to read what you were citing, your ignorance is revealed in the first sentence.
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
Twitter isn't a broadcaster. Twitter isn't a television or radio station. It isn't broadcasting anything. Making your entire argument moot.....as it isn't subject to broadcast regulations.
If such were the case, all porn sites on the internet would illegal. And of course, they're not.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Ugh. Your argument is obviously wrong. Twice....}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
No where does it claim that the only way a broadcaster can limit topic is if its a danger to the public. You imagined that.
Second, Twitter isn't subject to broadcast regulations.....because it isn't broadcasting. Your own citation cites what is subject to broadcast regulation: TV and Radio. Neither of which Twitter is. And there are no such restrictions for banning on an internet page.
Twitter has every authority to set its own terms of service. And anyone who agrees to those terms can be banned for violating them.
The restrictions you insist Twitter must abide......that it can't ban anyone unless it proves they are a danger to the public, is just more imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up that obligates no one to do anything. Including Twitter.
Next strawman please.
Your statements are embarrassingly ignorant.
Of course Twitter is broadcasting.
Nope. Your own citation of FCC complaints destroys your entire argument in the first sentence:
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
You literally ignored your own quote. Twitter has no broadcast license because it doesn't broadcast. Its neither a TV nor radio station. Killing your argument.
Nor does the FCC find that a broadcaster can ONLY limited content if its a threat to the public. Killing your argument again.
You're citing the wrong law, dip. As the internet isn't subject to the 1934 communications act, but to 1996 Telecommunications act.
The only carry over from the 1934 law is privacy requirements. And none of it limits Twitter's ability to create its own TOS and ban anyone who violates them.
Try again. As always, your ignorance hamstrings your argument.
Last edited:
Rigby5
Diamond Member
{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
And if you'd bothered to read what you were citing, your ignorance is revealed in the first sentence.
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
Twitter isn't a broadcaster. Twitter isn't a television or radio station. It isn't broadcasting anything. Making your entire argument moot.....as it isn't subject to broadcast regulations.
If such were the case, all porn sites on the internet would illegal. And of course, they're not.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Ugh. Your argument is obviously wrong. Twice....}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
No where does it claim that the only way a broadcaster can limit topic is if its a danger to the public. You imagined that.
Second, Twitter isn't subject to broadcast regulations.....because it isn't broadcasting. Your own citation cites what is subject to broadcast regulation: TV and Radio. Neither of which Twitter is. And there are no such restrictions for banning on an internet page.
Twitter has every authority to set its own terms of service. And anyone who agrees to those terms can be banned for violating them.
The restrictions you insist Twitter must abide......that it can't ban anyone unless it proves they are a danger to the public, is just more imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up that obligates no one to do anything. Including Twitter.
Next strawman please.
Your statements are embarrassingly ignorant.
Of course Twitter is broadcasting.
Nope. Your own citation of FCC complaints destroys your entire argument in the first sentence:
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
You literally ignored your own quote. Twitter has no broadcast license because it doesn't broadcast. Its neither a TV nor radio station. Killing your argument.
Nor does the FCC find that a broadcaster can ONLY limited content if its a threat to the public. Killing your argument again.
You're citing the wrong law, dip. As the internet isn't subject to the 1934 communications act, but to 1996 Telecommunications act.
The only carry over from the 1934 law is privacy requirements. And none of it limits Twitter's ability to create its own TOS and ban anyone who violates them.
Try again. As always, your ignorance hamstrings your argument.
Wrong again.
Broadband is broadcasting.
It does not mean you have to use the radio or TV frequencies, but just go out to the whole public that is listening.
And you proved yourself wrong again.
You quoted the proof internet providers can not discriminate.
{... but in February of 2016, the FCC voted in favor of reclassifying broadband IPSs as common carriers. ...}
Twitter owns and implements none of the internet at all in, any way.
ISP providers have to follow all of the FCC's regulations, including fair use.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,535
- 15,136
- 2,180
{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
And if you'd bothered to read what you were citing, your ignorance is revealed in the first sentence.
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
Twitter isn't a broadcaster. Twitter isn't a television or radio station. It isn't broadcasting anything. Making your entire argument moot.....as it isn't subject to broadcast regulations.
If such were the case, all porn sites on the internet would illegal. And of course, they're not.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Ugh. Your argument is obviously wrong. Twice....}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
No where does it claim that the only way a broadcaster can limit topic is if its a danger to the public. You imagined that.
Second, Twitter isn't subject to broadcast regulations.....because it isn't broadcasting. Your own citation cites what is subject to broadcast regulation: TV and Radio. Neither of which Twitter is. And there are no such restrictions for banning on an internet page.
Twitter has every authority to set its own terms of service. And anyone who agrees to those terms can be banned for violating them.
The restrictions you insist Twitter must abide......that it can't ban anyone unless it proves they are a danger to the public, is just more imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense that you've made up that obligates no one to do anything. Including Twitter.
Next strawman please.
Your statements are embarrassingly ignorant.
Of course Twitter is broadcasting.
Nope. Your own citation of FCC complaints destroys your entire argument in the first sentence:
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
You literally ignored your own quote. Twitter has no broadcast license because it doesn't broadcast. Its neither a TV nor radio station. Killing your argument.
Nor does the FCC find that a broadcaster can ONLY limited content if its a threat to the public. Killing your argument again.
You're citing the wrong law, dip. As the internet isn't subject to the 1934 communications act, but to 1996 Telecommunications act.
The only carry over from the 1934 law is privacy requirements. And none of it limits Twitter's ability to create its own TOS and ban anyone who violates them.
Try again. As always, your ignorance hamstrings your argument.
Wrong again.
Broadband is broadcasting.
Nope. Your own citation of FCC complaints destroys your entire argument in the first sentence:
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
TV and Radio Stations are broadcasting. Not websites. That's why no one who creates a website needs a broadcasting license. I have four websites. None ever required a broadcast license.
They're not broadcasting.
Try again. You're still stuck at square one. As Twitter has every authority to create its own TOS. And to ban anyone who agreed to abide that TOS.....but instead violate it. Exactly as Trump did.
Last edited:
No weapons? Are you fucking insane? Guns were seized. A car near the Capitol building was found with bombs and guns. They also used flags, shields and even a fire extinguisher as a weapon which was used to murder a cop. Aside from those, the sheer size of the mob was a weapon in itself."The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view."{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
...}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
More idiocies
The FCC is a government agency and therefore not Constitutionally allowed to prevent free speech. How many times does it need to be explained that barring public safety, the government cannot prevent free speech; but private business can. And Twitter is a private business.
Not to mention, Impeached Trump was inciting and encouraging violence on Twitter. That's a threat to public safety.
Show me proof that Trump was inciting violence?
I saw no illegal incitement to violence.
A demonstration with no weapons is just a sit-in, and is a time honored traditional means of political expression.
The mob busted past police barricades, then smashed doors and windows to break-in as hundreds poured in; and one woman had to be shot to keep her away from lawmakers. They also fashioned a gallows with a noose as they hunted for the vice president as they chanted, "hang Mike Pence!" Referring to that as a "sit-in" reveals your dishonesty.
And it's that same dishonesty which results in you denying Impeached Trump incited that insidious rebellion. After there were no more tricks up Trump's sleeve to steal the election, he told his mob, "you will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen." And he tells them, "because they want to steal the election. The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re ruthless and it’s time that somebody did something about it." And he tells them to take back your country, "you have to show strength and you have to be strong." And he encouraged them while they were rebelling against the government by again telling them the "election that was stolen from us," and that Democrats know it. And how there are the things that happen when you strip away an election Telling them he "loves" them and that they're "special."
Oh? You believe Bill Clinton was proven innocent of lying under oath?Impeached Trump is likely Constitutionally ineligible to run for president again.{...
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
Relevant Sections of the Communications Act of 1934
...
Section 312 [47 U.S.C. §312] Administrative sanctions.
(a) The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit –
(7) for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station, other than a non-commercial educational broadcast station, by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.
(f) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a treaty ratified by the United States.
(2) The term “repeated”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.
...}
Whether or not Trump is a future candidate is unclear, but obviously the point of this is to prevent political discrimination.
Wrong again.
Impeachment without a conviction is essentially proof of innocence.
It was deadly and it was still a rebellion even though it was unsuccessful. A rebellion is merely an armed or violent resistance to the government. And citizens have no right to break into public buildings and there are some areas of some public buildings which are off limits to the public without permission. Watch how easy it is to demonstrate you're an idiot.... when no one's in the Oval Office, break into it in protest and take a selfie to prove you did it, then post it here. Only then will I believe you're not insane.Trump used Twitter to encourage the rebellion.Forums like Twitter have the right to restrict discussion which is threat to public safety."See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”
Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.
One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.
It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?
Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.
Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.
This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.
Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.
Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.
There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.
And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.
Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.
Not you.
But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.
A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...
Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.
That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.
Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.
Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.
Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.
Liar.
Twitter does not own the internet and it is Twitter that is required to conform to the rules and laws governing the internet.
Only an idiot would claim that anyone providing an internet service could legally discriminate based on political beliefs.
Even a baker making a wedding cake can't get away with such a stupid, obvious, and illegal abuse of rights.
And you totally missed the whole point of Griswold, which is that you do NOT need specific legislation prohibiting the violation of inherent rights in order to prosecute any and all violations of individual rights.
You seem to be totally ignorant of the whole concept of authority in a democratic republic, which is the defense of individual rights, and nothing else.
And political opinions are not a protected class.
And where was there ever any threat to public safety?
Twitter had nothing to do with the occupation of congress, nor is the occupation of congress any remote threat to public safety. The only threat came from the violent police.
And stop mentioning "protected classes".
That has almost nothing at all to do with individual protected rights.
For example, the right to vote.
It is illegal to prevent you from voting, and that has nothing at all to what class you may belong to.
Individual rights are an aspect of individuals, not classes.
The fact some individuals have joined together for additional protection, in no way implies individual rights to not exist as you imply.
A rebellion is an illegal use of deadly force in order to destroy the existing government.
There was nothing deadly about the occupation except the police over reaction, and it is not even illegal.
Citizens have a right to occupy public property as a protest.
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view."{...
The FCC and Freedom of Speech
The FCC receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect or somehow improper political, economic or social statements.
In some cases, the complaints allege that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these statements are "un-American" and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, "stereotype" or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, gender identification, or sexual orientation, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC's Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.
Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. For more information about these rules, see our consumer guide.
What Are the Broadcasters' Responsibilities?
Individual radio and television station licensees are responsible for selecting all broadcast matter and for determining how their stations can best serve their communities. Broadcast licensees are responsible for choosing both the entertainment programming and the programming concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports and other subjects to be aired by the station. They also decide how their programs, including call-in shows, will be conducted and whether or not to edit or reschedule programs or material (for example, moving a program to a time slot during which children may not be listening or watching).
...}
So clearly Trump can not be banned by Twitter unless it can be proven he was causing a danger to the public.
Which he was not.
And the burden of proof would be on whomever claims Trump was creating a danger to the public.
More idiocies
The FCC is a government agency and therefore not Constitutionally allowed to prevent free speech. How many times does it need to be explained that barring public safety, the government cannot prevent free speech; but private business can. And Twitter is a private business.
Not to mention, Impeached Trump was inciting and encouraging violence on Twitter. That's a threat to public safety.
Wrong. Twitter does not run the internet, the federal government does. So if people are having their political expressions censored, the FCC is then at fault for not protecting the internet like they are required to by law.
The FCC simply can not allow Twitter to censor political expression, or else the FCC would be in violation of the 1st amendment.
You're truly a fucking nut.
No one but you is saying Twitter doesn't run the internet. Thus, your strawman collapses under the weight of your idiocy. Twitter is still a private company and like private companies, can set their own rules as to whom they provide service. Completely legal as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 122
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 949
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 9K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 199
- Replies
- 130
- Views
- 764
- Replies
- 69
- Views
- 338
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8283
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 476
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-