It's gonna be fun when we can sue Google, Twitter and other online groups for censorship

[satrebil]

And yes, a privately run organization can make it's own rules. If you don't like it, find somewhere else

Cool, so I can refuse service to black people in my restaurant.... right?

 

[pknopp]

Then they can't be platforms. It's literally that simple.

Has there ever been a case where a newspaper has been sued for a letter to the editor?

 

[satrebil]

Has there ever been a case where a newspaper has been sued for a letter to the editor?

I don't know and I don't care. They certainly COULD be, because a newspaper is a publisher.

 

[pknopp]

I don't know and I don't care. They certainly COULD be, because a newspaper is a publisher.

You don't know and dont care.....OK.

 

[satrebil]

You don't know and dont care.....OK.

It has nothing to do with my statement, so no I don't care.

 

[pknopp]

It has nothing to do with my statement, so no I don't care.

Not answering questions seems to be your standard reply.

 

[satrebil]

Not answering questions seems to be your standard reply.

K.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes they can. Let’s say a company or place of business, like a store, has a community bulletin board, where the public can post fliers, ads, etc. That store is prohibited from picking and choosing what can be posted or taken down on that community board.

No they can't

The First amendment applies only to the government.

You have no right to free speech at work, or on private property

And the store owner has total control of what is posted on his property.

 

[sakinago]

No they can't

The First amendment applies only to the government.

You have no right to free speech at work, or on private property

And the store owner has total control of what is posted on his property.

High Court’s Public TV Case Spotlights Social Media Free Speech

A Supreme Court case over harassing content aired on public-access TV could lead to greater liability for Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., and other social media for content on their sites.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Marsh v. Alabama - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The designated public forum: First Amendment issues

law2.umkc.edu

3rd paragraph talks of a case where a private religious school organization cannot exclude people for their homosexual practices because it violates their free speech.

Packingham v. North Carolina - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In a different unrelated case that cuts directly at the heart of the matter, Kennedy puts it well.
“ On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the accused, unanimously voting to reverse the state court.[9][10] Justice Kennedy, in an opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition”

 

[Blues Man]

High Court’s Public TV Case Spotlights Social Media Free Speech

A Supreme Court case over harassing content aired on public-access TV could lead to greater liability for Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., and other social media for content on their sites.

news.bloomberglaw.com

Marsh v. Alabama - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The designated public forum: First Amendment issues

law2.umkc.edu

3rd paragraph talks of a case where a private religious school organization cannot exclude people for their homosexual practices because it violates their free speech.

Packingham v. North Carolina - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In a different unrelated case that cuts directly at the heart of the matter, Kennedy puts it well.
“ On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the accused, unanimously voting to reverse the state court.[9][10] Justice Kennedy, in an opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition”

Homosexuality has nothing to do with free speech.

That's more of a civil rights thing. And if it's a church then it falls under the freedom to practice religion aspect of the First.

And no private business or person is obligated to provide you a place where you can speak.

If you want to speak then you do it on your own property or you get a permit to use public property.

I have no obligation to allow you to speak on my property or in my business.

The First Amendment only states that Congress shall make no law...

It does not state that any private person or business has to allow you to speak on their private property

 

[iceberg]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with free speech.

That's more of a civil rights thing. And if it's a church then it falls under the freedom to practice religion aspect of the First.

And no private business or person is obligated to provide you a place where you can speak.

If you want to speak then you do it on your own property or you get a permit to use public property.

I have no obligation to allow you to speak on my property or in my business.

The First Amendment only states that Congress shall make no law...

It does not state that any private person or business has to allow you to speak on their private property

doesn't say you must bake them a cake either.

you keep microslicing shit to where EVERYTHING is in favor of what the left wants / desires. TODAY. lord knows y'all are so fucking ADHD what you want tomorrow will probably change so you'll have to make up a new reason why this is ok for YOU and ONLY you.

private business can refuse service to you. you either go with that in whole you don't fucking do it. and if you want to say one business has a right to flat out tell you to fuck off, so does another.

like the left loved to do to trump when they came into office and dress makers refused to make a dress for the first lady and shit and that was fine.

and you wonder why people have had enough of your shit.

 

[Blues Man]

doesn't say you must bake them a cake either.

you keep microslicing shit to where EVERYTHING is in favor of what the left wants / desires. TODAY. lord knows y'all are so fucking ADHD what you want tomorrow will probably change so you'll have to make up a new reason why this is ok for YOU and ONLY you.

private business can refuse service to you. you either go with that in whole you don't fucking do it. and if you want to say one business has a right to flat out tell you to fuck off, so does another.

like the left loved to do to trump when they came into office and dress makers refused to make a dress for the first lady and shit and that was fine.

and you wonder why people have had enough of your shit.

Where did i say anything about cakes?

I have not mentioned anything about public access laws or private businesses refusing service but you assume to know my position on those subjects.

So if you want to know my position on those subjects then fucking ask me and don't tell me what you think I believe.

 

[sakinago]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with free speech.

That's more of a civil rights thing. And if it's a church then it falls under the freedom to practice religion aspect of the First.

And no private business or person is obligated to provide you a place where you can speak.

If you want to speak then you do it on your own property or you get a permit to use public property.

I have no obligation to allow you to speak on my property or in my business.

The First Amendment only states that Congress shall make no law...

It does not state that any private person or business has to allow you to speak on their private property

But if you’re property has a “community” poster board for the publics use, then that is deemed a “state actor”. That’s not coming from me, that’s coming from the courts. I’m usually not for government stepping in to matters of private business, but governments only dictum is to protect the god given rights laid out in the constitution, as long as it doesn’t impede on anyone else’s free speech rights.

With the opinion UNANIMOUSLY given in packingham v North Carolina, that social media is so vital to speech that even sex offenders must be permitted to use it, idk how the SCOTUS (if this goes to the SCOTUS) could ever argue that social media is vital to free speech but that social media companies, or search engines can suddenly decide which speech to accept or deny. At least idk how they could argue that without looking like a completely activist court.

 

[Blues Man]

But if you’re property has a “community” poster board for the publics use, then that is deemed a “state actor”. That’s not coming from me, that’s coming from the courts. I’m usually not for government stepping in to matters of private business, but governments only dictum is to protect the god given rights laid out in the constitution, as long as it doesn’t impede on anyone else’s free speech rights.

With the opinion UNANIMOUSLY given in packingham v North Carolina, that social media is so vital to speech that even sex offenders must be permitted to use it, idk how the SCOTUS (if this goes to the SCOTUS) could ever argue that social media is vital to free speech but that social media companies, or search engines can suddenly decide which speech to accept or deny. At least idk how they could argue that without looking like a completely activist court.

Yes people can use social media but what they post can be limited by the owners of the site.

Even if you have a community bulletin board you do not have to allow people to post pornographic or violent images or messages.

A private company can set the rules as to what can be posted on his property.

 

[berg80]

Publishers have a right to decide what content they want published.

In the wake of the revelations about how Russia used social media to help with Trump's election (and they are still doing it) Congress forced platforms like Facebook to monitor their site to try to prevent misinformation from being spread.
Complying with Congress now has them in the Liar-in-Chief's cross hairs because he does not want to be fact checked since he lies all the time...........about everything..........all the time.

 

[berg80]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why Trump is essentially trying to prevent social media platforms to keep liars telling lies off their sites.

 

[sakinago]

Yes people can use social media but what they post can be limited by the owners of the site.

Even if you have a community bulletin board you do not have to allow people to post pornographic or violent images or messages.

A private company can set the rules as to what can be posted on his property.

Not according to the courts, if your private business has some sort of communications area deemed for use by the “public”, not for company use, then that communication apparatus is a “state actor” and is subject to the protections of the first amendment. That goes for privately owned public access television, the “community corkboards, etc. Thems the rules. IF what you were saying is true than the gay baker had every right to refuse baking a cake. Now the baker did win the case, but not because of the argument that it was compelled speech for him to bake the cake. He won because Colorado showed very clear anti-Christian bias in their pursuit of him.

Twitter allows pornography, but if you say Bruce Jenner instead of Kaitlin Jenner, you are banned for dead naming. You get banned for saying “okay dude” to a vague avatar of a stranger who later claims to be a trans woman. We aren’t talking about porn or that sort of thing. We’re talking about clear admitted bias to one half of the nations views.

 

[Blues Man]

Not according to the courts, if your private business has some sort of communications area deemed for use by the “public”, not for company use, then that communication apparatus is a “state actor” and is subject to the protections of the first amendment. That goes for privately owned public access television, the “community corkboards, etc. Thems the rules. IF what you were saying is true than the gay baker had every right to refuse baking a cake. Now the baker did win the case, but not because of the argument that it was compelled speech for him to bake the cake. He won because Colorado showed very clear anti-Christian bias in their pursuit of him.

Twitter allows pornography, but if you say Bruce Jenner instead of Kaitlin Jenner, you are banned for dead naming. You get banned for saying “okay dude” to a vague avatar of a stranger who later claims to be a trans woman. We aren’t talking about porn or that sort of thing. We’re talking about clear admitted bias to one half of the nations views.

OK so show me any public access TV channel that will allow a pornographic live show.
Facebook does not allow pornography

What are the Supreme Court rulings you are referencing?

 

[sakinago]

OK so show me any public access TV channel that will allow a pornographic live show.
Facebook does not allow pornography

What are the Supreme Court rulings you are referencing?

That’s FCC regulation for public access. They have to be viewpoint neutral, just like a city counsel meeting can won’t allow pornographic displays, or will limit time, but have to stay viewpoint neutral. If a city counsel meeting were to allot more time for one view point as opposed to the other, then that’d be a violation of free speech rights. So let’s say Facebook secretly labeled a pro-life group as “pornographic material” despite that group not having anything remotely close to pornography on their page, that’d be Facebook not applying the rules evenly, and therefore not being viewpoint neutral. BTW, I used that an an example because Pinterest actually did that to a pro-life group.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Will the lefties who posted here demand that Twitter still censor under Musk?