Psaki reveals White House (government) is consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

[colfax_m]

I'm saying that if they regularly coordinate on what to flag, what to take down and what to leave up, they are state actors.

I disagree. Unless Facebook is doing so explicitly because government is telling them to do so, then they’re not state actors.

As long as Facebook is making the decision to pursue this, they are not state actors.

Was Hannity a state actor when he regularly colluded with TRUMP! and then spoke very favorably of him? Was he a mouthpiece for the president and thus the government? Do you think they just talked about football or do you think they talked about what Hannity was going to broadcast that week? IOW, being a state actor doesn't have to be coercive.

No! Of course not. Hannity was freely engaging in speech. He coordinated with the president on his own violation which means he was not a government actor.

You guys don’t seem to realize the extent of madness of this super broad belief of state actors.

I’ll add that conservatives generally are loath to transform people into state actors, and since Trump placed conservatives on the SC, this hairbrained idea isn’t likely to get anywhere.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Should the government be allowed to even ask that you be taken off facebook? NO!!!

Should the government be allowed to ask that NFL players be fired?

How do you sue someone who has no authority to cause the harm you’re suing over?

Did anyone in the NFL get fired?

If so, they could sue Trump and the FedGov for using government force or government authority to silence their free speech.

As it stands, not one single motherfucker got fired from the NFL.

Now let's talk about Facebook.....

YOU LOSE.

The NFL had a policy that fined players for kneeling. By your standard, that means that Trump violated the first amendment rights of these players.

And you didn’t give a shit then because you supported it.

This isn’t about principles. It’s about your petty politics.

they should sue. Have they?

But who should they sue?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the NFL on Facebook. It's what we believed all along. This is government using them as tools for propaganda.

You think you grasped the issues but you clearly have not.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm saying that if they regularly coordinate on what to flag, what to take down and what to leave up, they are state actors.

I disagree. Unless Facebook is doing so explicitly because government is telling them to do so, then they’re not state actors.

As long as Facebook is making the decision to pursue this, they are not state actors.

It is a relevant whether or not Facebook is a state actor. Government is already acting. Government is using Facebook as a tool.

The target here is not Facebook. Target is government. This is government suppression at its finest. These motherfuckers have found what they think is a nice little workaround.

A tool has no choice. Facebook does.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You lost this argument 9 pages ago. The government has every right to work with Facebook to take down content that is dangerous and is killing people.

I guess you and the Supreme Court will have to agree to disagree.

 

[colfax_m]

Should the government be allowed to even ask that you be taken off facebook? NO!!!

Should the government be allowed to ask that NFL players be fired?

How do you sue someone who has no authority to cause the harm you’re suing over?

Did anyone in the NFL get fired?

If so, they could sue Trump and the FedGov for using government force or government authority to silence their free speech.

As it stands, not one single motherfucker got fired from the NFL.

Now let's talk about Facebook.....

YOU LOSE.

The NFL had a policy that fined players for kneeling. By your standard, that means that Trump violated the first amendment rights of these players.

And you didn’t give a shit then because you supported it.

This isn’t about principles. It’s about your petty politics.

they should sue. Have they?

But who should they sue?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the NFL on Facebook. It's what we believed all along. This is government using them as tools for propaganda.

You think you grasped the issues but you clearly have not.

The government using NFL as a propoganda tool was just fine for you Nazis a few years ago.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm saying that if they regularly coordinate on what to flag, what to take down and what to leave up, they are state actors.

I disagree. Unless Facebook is doing so explicitly because government is telling them to do so, then they’re not state actors.

As long as Facebook is making the decision to pursue this, they are not state actors.

It is a relevant whether or not Facebook is a state actor. Government is already acting. Government is using Facebook as a tool.

The target here is not Facebook. Target is government. This is government suppression at its finest. These motherfuckers have found what they think is a nice little workaround.

A tool has no choice. Facebook does.

Choice is not the issue. Government action is the issue.

Government cannot and should not tell private entities to censor speech government does not like. That's what this is all about. That's the only issue here. Government needs to knock it the fuck off.

The fact that you can't see how this might fuck you up the ass in the future is absolutely pathetic. You don't deserve liberty.

 

[DrLove]

You lost this argument 9 pages ago. The government has every right to work with Facebook to take down content that is dangerous and is killing people.

I guess you and the Supreme Court will have to agree to disagree.

Bottom line: The government isn't doing what you claim they are doing.

 

[colfax_m]

You lost this argument 9 pages ago. The government has every right to work with Facebook to take down content that is dangerous and is killing people.

I guess you and the Supreme Court will have to agree to disagree.

Is there a Supreme Court case you’re referring to here? If so, I’d love to read it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Should the government be allowed to even ask that you be taken off facebook? NO!!!

Should the government be allowed to ask that NFL players be fired?

How do you sue someone who has no authority to cause the harm you’re suing over?

Did anyone in the NFL get fired?

If so, they could sue Trump and the FedGov for using government force or government authority to silence their free speech.

As it stands, not one single motherfucker got fired from the NFL.

Now let's talk about Facebook.....

YOU LOSE.

The NFL had a policy that fined players for kneeling. By your standard, that means that Trump violated the first amendment rights of these players.

And you didn’t give a shit then because you supported it.

This isn’t about principles. It’s about your petty politics.

they should sue. Have they?

But who should they sue?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the NFL on Facebook. It's what we believed all along. This is government using them as tools for propaganda.

You think you grasped the issues but you clearly have not.

The government using NFL as a propoganda tool was just fine for you Nazis a few years ago.

Who? Me? Link?

I never had an issue with free-speech in any manner.

I think the NFL was doing it self and its fans a disservice by continuing a pre-game ceremony many despise. But I never once wanted anyone to take action to stop players from expressing themselves.

You have me confused with others.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm saying that if they regularly coordinate on what to flag, what to take down and what to leave up, they are state actors.

I disagree. Unless Facebook is doing so explicitly because government is telling them to do so, then they’re not state actors.

As long as Facebook is making the decision to pursue this, they are not state actors.

It is a relevant whether or not Facebook is a state actor. Government is already acting. Government is using Facebook as a tool.

The target here is not Facebook. Target is government. This is government suppression at its finest. These motherfuckers have found what they think is a nice little workaround.

A tool has no choice. Facebook does.

Choice is not the issue. Government action is the issue.

Government cannot and should not tell private entities to censor speech government does not like. That's what this is all about. That's the only issue here. Government needs to knock it the fuck off.

The fact that you can't see how this might fuck you up the ass in the future is absolutely pathetic. You don't deserve liberty.

Choice is definitely the issue.

Who are you going to sue here for what harm?

The government isn’t taking anyone off of Facebook.

What’s the remedy? The government can’t put restore content back on Facebook.

You say it isn’t about Facebook but it’s absolutely central to the complaint.

 

[Vel]

Should the government be allowed to even ask that you be taken off facebook? NO!!!

Should the government be allowed to ask that NFL players be fired?

How do you sue someone who has no authority to cause the harm you’re suing over?

Did anyone in the NFL get fired?

If so, they could sue Trump and the FedGov for using government force or government authority to silence their free speech.

As it stands, not one single motherfucker got fired from the NFL.

Now let's talk about Facebook.....

YOU LOSE.

The NFL had a policy that fined players for kneeling. By your standard, that means that Trump violated the first amendment rights of these players.

And you didn’t give a shit then because you supported it.

This isn’t about principles. It’s about your petty politics.

You're trying mighty hard to deflect from the Gestapo tactics being utilized by Beijing's bought and paid for bitch in the Whitehouse. It's not working. That the Biden GOVERMENT is choosing which posts Facebook and Twitter censor in addition to asking them to promote government approved content is appalling and chilling. Lie to yourself about the severity of the situation if you wish but the rest of us aren't buying in. We KNOW that it's wrong and shouldn't happen in a free society.

 

[colfax_m]

But I never once wanted anyone to take action to stop players from expressing themselves.

Sure you did. You wanted the NFL to enforce their rule, which by your standard was a constitutional violation.

 

[Vel]

I'm saying that if they regularly coordinate on what to flag, what to take down and what to leave up, they are state actors.

I disagree. Unless Facebook is doing so explicitly because government is telling them to do so, then they’re not state actors.

As long as Facebook is making the decision to pursue this, they are not state actors.

It is a relevant whether or not Facebook is a state actor. Government is already acting. Government is using Facebook as a tool.

The target here is not Facebook. Target is government. This is government suppression at its finest. These motherfuckers have found what they think is a nice little workaround.

A tool has no choice. Facebook does.

Choice is not the issue. Government action is the issue.

Government cannot and should not tell private entities to censor speech government does not like. That's what this is all about. That's the only issue here. Government needs to knock it the fuck off.

The fact that you can't see how this might fuck you up the ass in the future is absolutely pathetic. You don't deserve liberty.

Choice is definitely the issue.

Who are you going to sue here for what harm?

The government isn’t taking anyone off of Facebook.

What’s the remedy? The government can’t put restore content back on Facebook.

You say it isn’t about Facebook but it’s absolutely central to the complaint.

If the government is telling FACEBOOK to remove someone then the government is effectively taking people off Facebook. IT's not rocket science.

 

[colfax_m]

Lie to yourself about the severity of the situation if you wish but the rest of us aren't buying in.

Severity of the situation?

It’s Facebook. Stop acting like the world is coming to an end. Who gives a shit?

 

[dblack]

But I never once wanted anyone to take action to stop players from expressing themselves.

Sure you did. You wanted the NFL to enforce their rule, which by your standard was a constitutional violation.

Quotes? Never saw that.

 

[colfax_m]

But I never once wanted anyone to take action to stop players from expressing themselves.

Sure you did. You wanted the NFL to enforce their rule, which by your standard was a constitutional violation.

Quotes? Never saw that.

Post in thread 'Kimmel can drop dead for all I care'
Kimmel can drop dead for all I care

He definitely never said anything about it being a violation of the constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You lost this argument 9 pages ago. The government has every right to work with Facebook to take down content that is dangerous and is killing people.

I guess you and the Supreme Court will have to agree to disagree.

Is there a Supreme Court case you’re referring to here? If so, I’d love to read it.

colfax sucks at law - read it and weep

When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.7 As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment 'lies at the foundation of free government by free men' and we must in all cases 'weigh the circumstances and appraise * * * the reasons * * * in support of the regulation of (those) rights.' Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 60 S.Ct. 146, 151, 84 L.Ed. 155. In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute. Insofar as the State has attempted to impose criminal punishment on appellant for undertaking to distribute religious literature in a company town, its action cannot stand. The case is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who are you going to sue here for what harm?

Joe fucking Biden.

 

[B. Kidd]

I'm saying that if they regularly coordinate on what to flag, what to take down and what to leave up, they are state actors.

I disagree. Unless Facebook is doing so explicitly because government is telling them to do so, then they’re not state actors.

As long as Facebook is making the decision to pursue this, they are not state actors.

It is a relevant whether or not Facebook is a state actor. Government is already acting. Government is using Facebook as a tool.

The target here is not Facebook. Target is government. This is government suppression at its finest. These motherfuckers have found what they think is a nice little workaround.

A tool has no choice. Facebook does.

Choice is not the issue. Government action is the issue.

Government cannot and should not tell private entities to censor speech government does not like. That's what this is all about. That's the only issue here. Government needs to knock it the fuck off.

The fact that you can't see how this might fuck you up the ass in the future is absolutely pathetic. You don't deserve liberty.

Gov't coordination with private corporations IS fascism.
We have arrived!

 

[colfax_m]

You lost this argument 9 pages ago. The government has every right to work with Facebook to take down content that is dangerous and is killing people.

I guess you and the Supreme Court will have to agree to disagree.

Is there a Supreme Court case you’re referring to here? If so, I’d love to read it.

colfax sucks at law - read it and weep

When we balance the Constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, as we must here, we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.7 As we have stated before, the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment 'lies at the foundation of free government by free men' and we must in all cases 'weigh the circumstances and appraise * * * the reasons * * * in support of the regulation of (those) rights.' Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 60 S.Ct. 146, 151, 84 L.Ed. 155. In our view the circumstance that the property rights to the premises where the deprivation of liberty, here involved, took place, were held by others than the public, is not sufficient to justify the State's permitting a corporation to govern a community of citizens so as to restrict their fundamental liberties and the enforcement of such restraint by the application of a State statute. Insofar as the State has attempted to impose criminal punishment on appellant for undertaking to distribute religious literature in a company town, its action cannot stand. The case is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

State action doctrine says you can be considered a state actor if you are engaged in an activity that is traditionally the exclusive domain of a state.

Such as running a town, which was the basis for Marsh v Alabama.

The government does not run social media websites, therefore Marsh v Alabama is not controlling precedent. See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.