Is free speech important

[TheGreenHornet]

Free speech is being attacked from many sources one of the biggest being the giants of social media aka facebook censoring a former President

Is Free Speech Important? | Frontpage Mag

[Photo above: Bishop Ridley and Latimer Burnt at one Stake at Oxford – 1555 – Granger]. Is free speech important?

www.frontpagemag.com

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Founders thought it was very important

 

[SavannahMann]

Tell me why Liberals can’t stand in your living room shouting at you? Because it is your living room right? Private Property has always been exempt from First Amendment Protections. And I know you find this hard to believe. But Twitter and Face Book are private companies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Free speech is being attacked from many sources one of the biggest being the giants of social media aka facebook censoring a former President

Is Free Speech Important? | Frontpage Mag

[Photo above: Bishop Ridley and Latimer Burnt at one Stake at Oxford – 1555 – Granger]. Is free speech important?

www.frontpagemag.com

Wrong – this is a lie.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities, such as social media.

Only government has the potential to violate free speech – and that’s not happening.

Conservatives clearly don’t believe the truth is important, as they continue to propagate the ridiculous, ignorant lie that private social media are ‘violating’ free speech.

 

[22lcidw]

Tell me why Liberals can’t stand in your living room shouting at you? Because it is your living room right? Private Property has always been exempt from First Amendment Protections. And I know you find this hard to believe. But Twitter and Face Book are private companies.

They seem to be political. Like nazi/soviet political. Private companies that have near monopoly status.

 

[dblack]

The Founders thought it was very important

That's because they were being arrested for speaking out against the king. They weren't whining because their "tweets" were deleted.

 

[Justin Richardson]

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed,

Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.

The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.

The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Founders thought it was very important

The Framers also understood that the First Amendment placed limits only on government, not private individuals.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that in the context of private society the people would determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, absent interference by the government or the courts.

And the people would exact the consequences on individuals who engaged in inappropriate private speech.

It was not the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society could engage in reckless, irresponsible, or inappropriate speech with impunity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.

The people, of course, can be trusted to make that determination – and are at liberty to do so.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Founders thought it was very important

The Framers also understood that the First Amendment placed limits only on government, not private individuals.

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that in the context of private society the people would determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not, absent interference by the government or the courts.

And the people would exact the consequences on individuals who engaged in inappropriate private speech.

It was not the Framers’ intent that private citizens in the context of private society could engage in reckless, irresponsible, or inappropriate speech with impunity.

You're clueless as usual

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Founders thought it was very important

That's because they were being arrested for speaking out against the king. They weren't whining because their "tweets" were deleted.

Like tweets were around in 1776? Dumbass

 

[Concerned American]

Free speech is being attacked from many sources one of the biggest being the giants of social media aka facebook censoring a former President

Is Free Speech Important? | Frontpage Mag

[Photo above: Bishop Ridley and Latimer Burnt at one Stake at Oxford – 1555 – Granger]. Is free speech important?

www.frontpagemag.com

Wrong – this is a lie.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities, such as social media.

Only government has the potential to violate free speech – and that’s not happening.

Conservatives clearly don’t believe the truth is important, as they continue to propagate the ridiculous, ignorant lie that private social media are ‘violating’ free speech.

All the bakers, photographers, Chick Fil A, Hobby Lobby and church owned day cares will be happy to hear that.

 

[playtime]

free speech is important & so are the consequences.

why can't one yell FIRE! in a crowded theater?

 

[SavannahMann]

Tell me why Liberals can’t stand in your living room shouting at you? Because it is your living room right? Private Property has always been exempt from First Amendment Protections. And I know you find this hard to believe. But Twitter and Face Book are private companies.

They seem to be political. Like nazi/soviet political. Private companies that have near monopoly status.

Lots of servers are waiting for you. Crank up a business and beat Facebook. Remember MySpace? It predated Facebook. It was defeated in the market place.

But go back further. VHS and Betamax battled for supremacy. Eventually VHS won and Beta went out as a format. But shortly after the first Laserdisc players appeared. Then what happened? DVD replaced VHS as the dominant format. Next it was a battle between Blueray and another format that ended up dead.

The market picks winners and losers. That has always been the case.

Like MySpace Facebook can go to the tubes. All you have to do is crank one up. Make it free for all. Make it a haven of free speech. No complaints or whining will be listened to. Make it part of the users agreement. You can probably write the software with a couple code monkeys and adapt it to apps in no time.