Question for Lefties

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.
What you are actually getting at is that originally no rights had any legislation protecting them.
For example, slavery was not prohibited by law.
It took a rebellion, civil war, and another couple hundred years, but all rights now are supposed to be protected from anyone and everyone, for everyone.

Specifically what you should have said is that the 1st Amendment and the whole Bill of Rights it comes from, actually was intended only as limits on the federal government.

But never before were people ever fired for their political beliefs.
That is obviously wrong, and would destroy any sort of democracy.
And only recently has anyone been so ignorant of the basics of rights, law, and democracy, that they would have even tried to do something like this.
This is a very weird time we live in.
I never saw people being fired over political beliefs before, and I am over 70 years old.
It used to happen, but quietly and in secret.
I have no idea when, how, or why people now seem to think it is ok.
It isn't ok and never should be.
It is identical to the Krystallnacht of 1938 Germany or a Soviet purge pogrom.

 

[BULLDOG]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish.

Section 230 Protections

The point of Section 230 protection is to make the publisher void of liability from content put up by those using their site.
However, if the publisher does censor content, then they do become liable for the content.
The court rulings to the contrary were likely unusual cases.
But it still is not relevant to the fact it is still always wrong to discriminate based on political views.
It is only right to censor based on harm.

You can believe what you want about what is right. We're dealing with what is legal, and you just don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Rigby5]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media. If so, then what is to stop them from hiring and firing employees only based on their political views?

Could a conservative boss, for example, fire all his liberal employees?

Would there be any violation of their "rights"?

There’s no federal law against employment discrimination based on politics. Only a handful of states protect this.

Not really true.
Specific legislation is NOT needed.
The general laws are already sufficient.
When they specifically state that discrimination is illegal based on gender, race, and religion, that does not mean other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.
It just means no one was foolish enough to try it before, so no one had to petition to get specific language into law before.
Rights are infinite and can never all be enumerated.
That does not mean they don't exist and can't be protected by federal enforcement of generic laws.

 

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish.

Section 230 Protections

The point of Section 230 protection is to make the publisher void of liability from content put up by those using their site.
However, if the publisher does censor content, then they do become liable for the content.

I posted the rulings and link earlier. Obviously you didn't read it or you are trying to be cute. No one "censored content". They deleted it. They are completely legal in doing that.

The court rulings to the contrary were likely unusual cases.
But it still is not relevant to the fact it is still always wrong to discriminate based on political views.
It is only right to censor based on harm.

Argue that. I'll not argue with that in general principle.

 

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

 

[BlindBoo]

So the Left is perfectly OK with corporations censoring conservatives based on their political views on social media.

Depends more on the content of what they post to their social media account.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish.

Section 230 Protections

The point of Section 230 protection is to make the publisher void of liability from content put up by those using their site.
However, if the publisher does censor content, then they do become liable for the content.
The court rulings to the contrary were likely unusual cases.
But it still is not relevant to the fact it is still always wrong to discriminate based on political views.
It is only right to censor based on harm.

You can believe what you want about what is right. We're dealing with what is legal, and you just don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong.
For example, the 1964 or 1991 Civil Rights acts are for all civil rights, not just over race.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

Civil Rights Act of 1991

www.eeoc.gov

No right ever has to be explicitly stated in statutes in order to be covered, intended, and protected.
Laws are intentionally left vague because the ways rights can be infringed is infinite.
Look at protections of things like assault and battery.
They do not list specifics.
They do not have to.
That is for judges and juries to decide.
The fact people were still being discriminated against based on gender, race, and religion, do petitioned for specific language, does not at all imply that all rights need specific language in order to be protected.
And it should be obvious that specific language for all possible rights is impossible, since rights are infinite.

 

[BULLDOG]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish.

Section 230 Protections

The point of Section 230 protection is to make the publisher void of liability from content put up by those using their site.
However, if the publisher does censor content, then they do become liable for the content.
The court rulings to the contrary were likely unusual cases.
But it still is not relevant to the fact it is still always wrong to discriminate based on political views.
It is only right to censor based on harm.

You can believe what you want about what is right. We're dealing with what is legal, and you just don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong.
For example, the 1964 or 1991 Civil Rights acts are for all civil rights, not just over race.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

Civil Rights Act of 1991

www.eeoc.gov

No right ever has to be explicitly stated in statutes in order to be covered, intended, and protected.
Laws are intentionally left vague because the ways rights can be infringed is infinite.
Look at protections of things like assault and battery.
They do not list specifics.
They do not have to.
That is for judges and juries to decide.
The fact people were still being discriminated against based on gender, race, and religion, do petitioned for specific language, does not at all imply that all rights need specific language in order to be protected.
And it should be obvious that specific language for all possible rights is impossible, since rights are infinite.

Well, yes. Assault and battery are specifically against the law. You are making a fool of yourself.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?
Obviously that is illegal.
You can't have a democracy if you allow political discrimination, (violations of free speech).

 

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish.

Section 230 Protections

The point of Section 230 protection is to make the publisher void of liability from content put up by those using their site.
However, if the publisher does censor content, then they do become liable for the content.
The court rulings to the contrary were likely unusual cases.
But it still is not relevant to the fact it is still always wrong to discriminate based on political views.
It is only right to censor based on harm.

You can believe what you want about what is right. We're dealing with what is legal, and you just don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong.
For example, the 1964 or 1991 Civil Rights acts are for all civil rights, not just over race.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

Civil Rights Act of 1991

www.eeoc.gov

No right ever has to be explicitly stated in statutes in order to be covered, intended, and protected.
Laws are intentionally left vague because the ways rights can be infringed is infinite.
Look at protections of things like assault and battery.
They do not list specifics.
They do not have to.
That is for judges and juries to decide.
The fact people were still being discriminated against based on gender, race, and religion, do petitioned for specific language, does not at all imply that all rights need specific language in order to be protected.
And it should be obvious that specific language for all possible rights is impossible, since rights are infinite.

Well, yes. Assault and battery are specifically against the law. You are making a fool of yourself.

Of course assault and battery are specifically against the law, but there is no specific definition of what assault or battery have to be.
They can include things like unconsented touching, but they do not need to cover things like being shocked at a distance with a taser. The taser example does not need to be specified in order for the generic harm to already be covered.

 

[colfax_m]

When they specifically state that discrimination is illegal based on gender, race, and religion, that does not mean other discrimination is legal.

You can’t prosecute someone for breaking a law that doesn’t exist.

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

 

[pknopp]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

 

[Rigby5]

When they specifically state that discrimination is illegal based on gender, race, and religion, that does not mean other discrimination is legal.

You can’t prosecute someone for breaking a law that doesn’t exist.

The laws against discrimination DO exist.
They just go not specifically mention which rights are not to be discriminated against.
That is because ALL rights are not supposed to be discriminated against, and that is an infinite list that can never be enumerated.
What you are saying is that all crimes are legal until specifically listed as prohibited.
And clearly that is impossible.
That is why I used the example of a taser.
It does not cut or shoot.
So it is not specifically listed.
Does that mean using a taser on someone (not in defense), is legal?
Of course not.
It is still illegal assault.

 

[kaz]

To you the fact that someone understands that something is legal means a person supports that. There is no discussing things factually, just emotionally.

My God, it's your answer that is so emotional.

First, his OP only asked what is legal. He said nothing about what it right. That was entirely your projection.

And Democrats CONSTANTLY argue that anything we think should be legal means that we believe it's right. Again, you're just purely projecting.

You forgot you aren't a Democrat ... again ...

 

[Rigby5]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

At the very least, 230 will be modified to provide more clear language against political censorship. The current Supreme Court would not rule in Facebook or Twitters favor with regards to their lack of “good faith” when applying their rules and restrictions. If the Democrats pack the court, then yes, true free speech will be gone. Any true opposition to these platforms will be quickly shot down by the feds immediately using the same biased and false premise Facebook and Twitter use to censor their users.

"Free speech" protections have always been limits to the government, not the people.

Not true.
Free speech is supposed to be an individual, inherent, right, so than no one was ever supposed to infringe.

Wrong.

Oh come on.
It is obvious.
What if you have a company town and the wealthy boss simply won't publish anything by an opposing party, or let them even rent a hall for meetings?

Let me know when that happens and we can discuss it.

It has already happened hundreds of time.
The company towns of the turn of the century were notorious.
It took decades to finally get legislation to rule against such abuses.
Remember that at one time unions were not legally protected by specific legislation either.
But protection of rights is never supposed to need specific legislation.
Are you seriously trying to claim that if some criminal finds a new way to harm others and infringe upon rights, that they can't be stopped until specific legislation is passed?

Lot's of things happened in the past. Towns would take your guns as you entered the town in the past.

I have no idea what you are proposing with "some criminal" either. I can't address some vague accusation.

That is a misconception.
The cattle drive towns never took guns just from entering town.
What they did was prohibit those intending from drinking or gambling, from retaining weapons.
Those in town just to buy supplies for example, were not required to relinquish.
And those who did intend to drink and gamble, had their firearms return upon leaving.
It was a free storage service, not an infringement.

By "some criminal", I mean that technology constantly changes.
New ways to cause harm will always be invented.
For example, do we need new legislation now that we use cellphones and anyone can easily eavesdrop on our phone calls?
No, that is because we always still had the right to privacy and fall back on generic legislation.

 

[Rigby5]

The whole point of a democracy is to protect that which you do not like, as long as it is not harmful.
What is popular does not need protection.
But what is unpopular does and legally is due protection, because that is how a minority has its rights protected, and historic wrongs get to be made right.
Once you allow discrimination of what you don't like, then you have no democracy or any rights at all really.
Then it is just Might Makes Right of the majority.

 

[colfax_m]

When they specifically state that discrimination is illegal based on gender, race, and religion, that does not mean other discrimination is legal.

You can’t prosecute someone for breaking a law that doesn’t exist.

The laws against discrimination DO exist.
They just go not specifically mention which rights are not to be discriminated against.
That is because ALL rights are not supposed to be discriminated against, and that is an infinite list that can never be enumerated.
What you are saying is that all crimes are legal until specifically listed as prohibited.
And clearly that is impossible.
That is why I used the example of a taser.
It does not cut or shoot.
So it is not specifically listed.
Does that mean using a taser on someone (not in defense), is legal?
Of course not.
It is still illegal assault.

Attacking someone with a taser would cause bodily injury and therefore be considered battery.

Which, unsurprisingly, is against the law.

So although taser is not named specifically, it’s clearly illegal to assault someone with one.

 

[BULLDOG]

Conservatives should censor themselves. Normal people don't have a problem stating their views without running afoul of the rules. If you can't be a conservative without violent or racist rhetoric or dangerous lies then that's a problem with your ideology.

Any speech that is not in line with the left if considered racist and dangerous. I don’t agree with affirmative action policies. I think they are the epitome of reverse racism. Facebook could sensor me if they wanted for that.

Facebook can sensor who they like, but if so, they cannot be afforded section 230 protection. They want their cake and be able to eat it too.

It is not legal for Facebook to censor who they like.
They can only legally censor based on what could be harmful to the rights of others.
Just because no one is prosecuting Facebook, does not mean its legal.

You have no "rights" on Facebook outside of those they grant.

Nonsense.
Facebook owns nothing and maintains nothing.
Facebook is using the internet, so then is required to follow the fair use regulations established for the internet.
You have the same rights of fair use of Facebook as Blacks do at a lunch counter in Alabama.
No one open to the public can legally discriminate.
You have rights everywhere that everyone has to abide by.

If a customer at a counter starts cussing out other customers they can be booted.

That may be true, but it would not then be arbitrary, but in defense of their business to not be harmed by one customer chasing away others.

Facebook will argue that deleting lies is not arbitrary either.

And that would be extremely easy to counter as lies from both sides are not deleted. How many lies were posted about Trump on Facebook? My God, where to start.

It's their call, not yours.

Not if they are afforded Section 230 protection.

File a lawsuit.

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish.

Section 230 Protections

The point of Section 230 protection is to make the publisher void of liability from content put up by those using their site.
However, if the publisher does censor content, then they do become liable for the content.
The court rulings to the contrary were likely unusual cases.
But it still is not relevant to the fact it is still always wrong to discriminate based on political views.
It is only right to censor based on harm.

You can believe what you want about what is right. We're dealing with what is legal, and you just don't know what you are talking about.

Wrong.
For example, the 1964 or 1991 Civil Rights acts are for all civil rights, not just over race.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

Civil Rights Act of 1991

www.eeoc.gov

No right ever has to be explicitly stated in statutes in order to be covered, intended, and protected.
Laws are intentionally left vague because the ways rights can be infringed is infinite.
Look at protections of things like assault and battery.
They do not list specifics.
They do not have to.
That is for judges and juries to decide.
The fact people were still being discriminated against based on gender, race, and religion, do petitioned for specific language, does not at all imply that all rights need specific language in order to be protected.
And it should be obvious that specific language for all possible rights is impossible, since rights are infinite.

Well, yes. Assault and battery are specifically against the law. You are making a fool of yourself.

Of course assault and battery are specifically against the law, but there is no specific definition of what assault or battery have to be.
They can include things like unconsented touching, but they do not need to cover things like being shocked at a distance with a taser. The taser example does not need to be specified in order for the generic harm to already be covered.

Yes, there is a legal definition of what assault and battery are.

Assault and Battery

www.law.cornell.edu

.
Assault and Battery
Primary tabs
Overview
Assault and battery exists in both the tort law context and the criminal law context.
Respectively, "assault" and "battery" are separate offenses. However, they often occur together, and that occurrence is referred to as "assault and battery."
In an act of physical violence by one person against another, "assault" is usually paired with battery. In an act of physical violence, assault refers to the act which causes the victim to apprehend imminent physical harm, while battery refers to the actual act causing the physical harm.
Criminal Law
Criminal law statutes will sometimes merge the two terms of "assault" and "battery" into the one crime of "assault."
Tort Law
In tort law, the act of assault and battery would be considered an intentional tort.