They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…Let me know when those two countries tender an offer to buy out the private platforms to they can set their rules.
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.
They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…Let me know when those two countries tender an offer to buy out the private platforms to they can set their rules.
The US govt does not control who accesses the internet.
The first amend does prohibit the govt from restricting speech on the internet (with child porn being excepted)
If you have link supporting the assertion that twitter (or other internet utilities or boards) may not regulate speech based on their own standards, I'd love to see it.
They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…
That's an interesting subject. And not one I've looked at beyond knowing for countries to ban access inside their borders.They can certainly regulate them and make them liable for data on there…
hasta la vistaFCC regulations are huge and painful.
I am not going to bother.
But this is the same principle that the Mormons, Moonies won court cases on.
You can not legally discriminate against ideas you do not like, unless it would directly cause you harm, such as someone successfully suing you.
Again, the point is NOT whether Twitter can ban speech it does not like.Again, I'd love to see a link the FCC regulations provide that twitter cannot have content standards
Twitter claims they are like AT&T or Verizon. They don’t publish info just convos between people and such. But when you Ban based on subjectivity then you are a publisher and may be held liable. Verizon won’t ban you for saying vaccines don’t work for example. Twitter may. Right White 6That's an interesting subject. And not one I've looked at beyond knowing for countries to ban access inside their borders.
Apparently "content standards" is a euphemism for violating free speech laws.Again, I'd love to see a link the FCC regulations provide that twitter cannot have content standards
Exactly! Twitter's subjective preferences violate free speech protections.Twitter claims they are like AT&T or Verizon. They don’t publish info just convos between people and such. But when you Ban based on subjectivity then you are a publisher and may be held liable. Verizon won’t ban you for saying vaccines don’t work for example. Twitter may. Right @White 6
Free speech only applies to regulations by the govt. The govt cannot ban or limit any contentAgain, the point is NOT whether Twitter can ban speech it does not like.
Can Twitter use public air waves to violate laws that violate free speech laws?
Where is there support for the notion that an internet utility or message board becomes "a publisher" when they regulate content?Twitter claims they are like AT&T or Verizon. They don’t publish info just convos between people and such. But when you Ban based on subjectivity then you are a publisher and may be held liable. Verizon won’t ban you for saying vaccines don’t work for example. Twitter may. Right White 6
France - what a power that country is. In WWII Germany conquered France faster than the Taliban took back Afghanistan. The last time the French won a war was the French Revolution, because they were fighting the French.
Free speech only applies to regulations by the govt. The govt cannot ban or limit any content
Homepage
The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.www.freedomforuminstitute.org
although both Trump and the dems question whether that should be so.
Rigby chose not to put up any proof that the FCC prohibits private utilites from enforcing standards for content placed on their sites. I've never heard or read any support for that notion. Although the Trump camp would sorely like that.
Where is there support for the notion that an internet utility or message board becomes "a publisher" when they regulate content?
Yes, the government owns the Internet.
Twitter signed the FCC rules against discrimination when it accepted use of the Internet.
Twitter use the internet, so then has to abide by FCC rules.
hasta la vista
Nonsense.Back in Founder times, newspapers had to carry obnoxious adds calling opponents all sort of names.
You simply have fundamental misconceptions about the internet and the first amendment.
You're simply making shit up. None of this is codified in law, nor should it be. It would be nuts if they tried to.It is a public information source that then can not be illegally restricted to censor in violation of inherent individual rights.
There are no restrictions on private use, where you simply are transmitting something to one specific receiver.
But once you disseminate to a wide public audience, then you have to follow rules prohibiting arbirary censorship.
Only censorship in defense against harm is legal.