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

[colfax_m]

Joe fucking Biden.

Great. What’s the harm?

 

[blackhawk]

Define misinformation? The dictionary definition is to deliberately intended to deceive such as saying two plus two equals six. Calling an opinion or view point that you don’t like or agree with such as a doctor expressing an different view or opinion on mask wearing or rather kids should have to get vaccinated than what the government is saying is not misinformation. That is more in line with censorship and the kind of behavior you would see in countries that have state run media like Russia, China and North Korea.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

RE-read my quote and tell me what you see:

Your point is well taken here.

My point is that it is against NFL policy to kneel during the National Anthem in pre-game ceremony, yet the NFL is not enforcing its own policy. But if the Dallas Motherfucking Cowboys want to wear a helmet sticker honoring the fallen Dallas Police Officer, the NFL tells them to fuck off.

Inconsistency in NFL policy enforcement, favoring a bullshit narrative of the commie left, is where I have problem with the Kneeling Nancy Bitches.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Joe fucking Biden.

Great. What’s the harm?

un....fucking....believable....

 

[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.

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.

Read this again:

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.

 

[colfax_m]

un....fucking....believable....

It’s not. Facebook is doing the takedown. You going to sue Joe Biden because Facebook took down your content?

Nope.

 

[Oddball]

Define misinformation? The dictionary definition is to deliberately intended to deceive such as saying two plus two equals six. Calling an opinion or view point that you don’t like or agree with such as a doctor expressing an different view or opinion on mask wearing or rather kids should have to get vaccinated than what the government is saying is not misinformation. That is more in line with censorship and the kind of behavior you would see in countries that have state run media like Russia, China and North Korea.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

un....fucking....believable....

It’s not. Facebook is doing the takedown. You going to sue Joe Biden because Facebook took down your content?

Nope.

You asked what the harm is?

The fact that you are asking that question is enough to simply end this conversation.

 

[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.

Read this again:

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.

Read it. What I said is very relevant and you haven’t addressed it.

Marsh v Alabama turned on the fact that the private entity was performing an action that the state almost exclusively does. That makes it a state actor and blind to first amendment. That’s not the case here.

JACKSON v. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.​

We have, of course, found state action present in the exercise by a private entity of powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State. See, e. g., Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1932) (election); Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) (election); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) (company town); Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296 (1966) (municipal park). If we were dealing with the exercise by Metropolitan of some power delegated to it by the State which is traditionally associated with sovereignty, such as eminent domain, our case would be quite a different one.

 

[Oddball]

un....fucking....believable....

It’s not. Facebook is doing the takedown. You going to sue Joe Biden because Facebook took down your content?

Nope.

You asked what the harm is?

The fact that you are asking that question is enough to simply end this conversation.

Useful idjits gonna idjit.

 

[colfax_m]

You asked what the harm is?

The fact that you are asking that question is enough to simply end this conversation.

There is no harm caused to the individual by Biden.

I asked the question to see if you could make an argument that there was harm by Joe Biden. You can’t.

 

[colfax_m]

Useful idjits gonna idjit.

Quiet. I’m mopping the floor with this dope.

 

[meaner gene]

Define misinformation? The dictionary definition is to deliberately intended to deceive such as saying two plus two equals six. Calling an opinion or view point that you don’t like or agree with such as a doctor expressing an different view or opinion on mask wearing or rather kids should have to get vaccinated than what the government is saying is not misinformation.

Misinformation is saying that the vaccine caused 6,000 deaths.

Misinformation is saying Trump won an election he lost 306 to 232 (81 million to 74 million votes)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Useful idjits gonna idjit.

Quiet. I’m mopping the floor with this dope.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972)

It's only a matter of time before this is upended.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...5+U.S.+715+(1961).&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1It's just RIGHT THERE for the taking.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

https://casetext.com/case/brentwood-academy-v-tennessee-second-sch-athletic-assnOh, it's just RIGHT THERE....

 

[colfax_m]

It's just RIGHT THERE for the taking.

This should demonstrate how hard it is to become a state actor:
In view of all the circumstances of this case, including the facts that the restaurant was physically and financially an integral part of a public building, built and maintained with public funds, devoted to a public parking service, and owned and operated by an agency of the State for public purposes, the State was a joint participant in the operation of the restaurant, and its refusal to serve appellant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facebook satisfies none of these requirements. Not part of a public bullying. Not built and maintained with public funds. Not owned and operated by an agency of the state for public purposes. Not in joint operation with the government.

 

[colfax_m]

https://casetext.com/case/brentwood-academy-v-tennessee-second-sch-athletic-assnOh, it's just RIGHT THERE....

“Entwinement”
The necessarily fact-bound inquiry leads to the conclusion of state action here. The Association's nominally private character is overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings, and there is no substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying constitutional standards to it. To the extent of 84% of its membership, the Association is an organization of public schools represented by their officials acting in their official capacity to provide an integral element of secondary public schooling, interscholastic athletics. There would be no recognizable Association without the public school officials, who overwhelmingly determine and perform all but the Association's purely ministerial acts. Only the 16% minority of private school memberships keeps the entwinement of the Association and public schools from being total and their identities totally indistinguishable. To complement the entwinement from the bottom up, the State has provided entwinement from the top down: State Board members sit ex officio on the Association's governing bodies and Association employees participate in the state retirement system. Entwinement to the degree shown here requires that the Association be charged with a public character and judged by constitutional standards.

The association is overwhelmingly composed of public schools and state board members sit on their governing bodies. Also not present here for Facebook.

 

[colfax_m]

Useful idjits gonna idjit.

Quiet. I’m mopping the floor with this dope.

Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972)

It's only a matter of time before this is upended.

Doubt it. Conservatives usually are less likely to define a private entity as a state actor as it is a restriction of their freedom.

 

[colfax_m]

Bootney, why don’t you ever explain why these cases are relevant and applicable?