The First Amendment is useless.

[my2¢]

We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality.

Seems to me as the same sort of bellyaching heard from liberals 39 years ago in regard to political talk radio.

Not to worry though, only 5 days until the launch of: Frank VIP Signup (frankspeech.com)

 

[dblack]

That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.

They are obligated if they print the views of everyone else.

Why?

Because they are open to the public, so then they are not legally allowed to discriminate.

LInk? I smell bullshit.

Have you ever actually thought your nonsense through? By you asinine logic a business could never have a sale on women's clothing.

 

[Rigby5]

"The First Amendment is useless" ... because I can't use it to force Facebook to host Trumpster propaganda.

The first amendment should force Facebook to host Trump propaganda.

If you and the Trumpsters succeed in twisting it this way, freedom of speech is gone.

Wrong.
And I am very anti-Trump.
But it is Facebook that is trying to destroy not just freedom of speech, but every aspect of a democratic republic.
Facebook is totally criminal in its censorship, since it is not based on one of the legal reasons censoring can be allowed.

 

[dblack]

... it is completely illegal then for them to discriminate over political philosophy or association.

Link? If that's true, that's an egregious violation of free speech - of freedom in general.

No, a person who wants to push a political agenda and does so openly, can say what they want, (as long as not slander, inciting violence, fraud, etc,.)

Yep. They sure can. But that's not the question. The question is whether they can force others to accommodate them.

But Facebook claims to not have a political agenda and instead that it was just being neutral in publishing the views of all others.
To then arbitrarily censor some political views is not just fraud, but in violation of their signed contract with the FCC, for fair use of the public internet.

So, sue them for breach of contract. And they'll just change their contract. But that, of course, won't satisfy you. You won't be satisfied until the government is firmly in charge.

 

[dblack]

"The First Amendment is useless" ... because I can't use it to force Facebook to host Trumpster propaganda.

The first amendment should force Facebook to host Trump propaganda.

If you and the Trumpsters succeed in twisting it this way, freedom of speech is gone.

Wrong.
And I am very anti-Trump.

I don't care. On this issue you're standing side by side with their authoritarian ambitions.

But it is Facebook that is trying to destroy not just freedom of speech, but every aspect of a democratic republic.
Facebook is totally criminal in its censorship, since it is not based on one of the legal reasons censoring can be allowed.

Every statist thinks in terms of what government "allows". There goes your "rights are infinite" ruse.

 

[Rigby5]

"The First Amendment is useless" ... because I can't use it to force Facebook to host Trumpster propaganda.

The first amendment should force Facebook to host Trump propaganda.
I am anti-Trump, but Trump has a right to equal access to Facebook as anyone.
The only exceptions would be if Trump was committing fraud, slander, or inciting violence.

fraud and slander are covered under the 1st A because they are subjective and why they are civil matters not criminal,, inciting violence is not,,

Fraud and slander are not protected speech under the 1st amendment because they are deliberate and known to be false and harmful ahead of time. If the person says things that are untrue, but believes them to be true, that is not fraud or slander.
But I agree fraud and slander in general are civil matters, while inciting violence is a criminal matter.

 

[Rigby5]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

the media are people so they have the same rights as others,, corp. media is a creation of government and subject to the rules set in that agreement,,

Media agree to fair use regulations before they are allowed to open for business to the public.
For example, a telephone company can not decide to discriminate against opposing political views.
Media are not people but services under stricter regulations than people have.
For example, individuals can discriminate, but to get a license to be open to the public, a business has to pledge to not discriminate.

 

[Rigby5]

Freedom of speech does not override the freedom of the press.

That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.

They are obligated if they print the views of everyone else.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650/1

Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider’s decision about whether and how to present a user’s content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites’ decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users’ content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken “voluntarily” and “in good faith” to restrict access to “objectionable” material.

Since political speech protection has been incorporated as an individual right, courts have ruled that individuals also can not discriminate against others based on political affiliation.

The reality is that political discrimination by internet providers is totally illegal, but there just is no easy means by which to redress it. The Communications Decency Act is not relevant because it is about censorship based on sex or profanity.

 

[BlindBoo]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

 

[bripat9643]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

The website is a govenrment protected monopoly. Their protection requires that they function as a platform, not as a publisher. In the later case, they can be sued. Facebook recieves protection from lawsuits as if it's a platform, but it behaves as if it's a publisher.

 

[dblack]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

The website is a govenrment protected monopoly. Their protection requires that they function as a platform, not as a publisher. In the later case, they can be sued. Facebook recieves protection from lawsuits as if it's a platform, but it behaves as if it's a publisher.

The government owns everything! Everyone!

 

[DustyInfinity]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I hope this isn't spaghetti logic, but I'll give it a try. We can all agree the media is a political arm of one party or the other. The same people who own these media companies dump money into our politics. Does it really make sense to say that it is just private companies doing what they want when they are actually hip deep in the political machine? Isn't it basically government censoring us?

 

[progressive hunter]

"The First Amendment is useless" ... because I can't use it to force Facebook to host Trumpster propaganda.

The first amendment should force Facebook to host Trump propaganda.
I am anti-Trump, but Trump has a right to equal access to Facebook as anyone.
The only exceptions would be if Trump was committing fraud, slander, or inciting violence.

fraud and slander are covered under the 1st A because they are subjective and why they are civil matters not criminal,, inciting violence is not,,

Fraud and slander are not protected speech under the 1st amendment because they are deliberate and known to be false and harmful ahead of time. If the person says things that are untrue, but believes them to be true, that is not fraud or slander.
But I agree fraud and slander in general are civil matters, while inciting violence is a criminal matter.

and because they are civil they are protected unless proven to do harm to another,, if they werent protected they would be criminal like incitement is,,

 

[BlindBoo]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

The website is a govenrment protected monopoly. Their protection requires that they function as a platform, not as a publisher. In the later case, they can be sued. Facebook recieves protection from lawsuits as if it's a platform, but it behaves as if it's a publisher.

No it's not. The Government is suing them for violating anti trust laws.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45650/1

 

[dblack]

We can all agree the media is a political arm of one party or the other.

No.

 

[BlindBoo]

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.

Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

The website is a govenrment protected monopoly. Their protection requires that they function as a platform, not as a publisher. In the later case, they can be sued. Facebook recieves protection from lawsuits as if it's a platform, but it behaves as if it's a publisher.

The government owns everything! Everyone!

 

[XponentialChaos]

I hope this isn't spaghetti logic, but I'll give it a try. We can all agree the media is a political arm of one party or the other. The same people who own these media companies dump money into our politics. Does it really make sense to say that it is just private companies doing what they want when they are actually hip deep in the political machine? Isn't it basically government censoring us?

Looks like you’re attempting to use some kind of transitive property incorrectly to me.

Private companies and the government are different.

 

[Man of Ethics]

The n-word is not protected speech because it is not political but hate speech intended to cause harm and even deliberately incite violence.

I agree. Actual Hate Speech is wrong and should be subject to disciplinary sanctions.

But 90% of those cancelled have not committed actual Hate Speech.

 

[harmonica]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

NOW I see the problem--you don't know what the !st Amendment is !!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHAHA
'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech'''''

..just like all of the Amendments--they can be interpreted many ways
..anyway, getting back to your original reply---it IS related
hahahhahaha--you fkd up

 

[XponentialChaos]

.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.

hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

NOW I see the problem--you don't know what the !st Amendment is !!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHAHA
'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech'''''

..just like all of the Amendments--they can be interpreted many ways
..anyway, getting back to your original reply---it IS related
hahahhahaha--you fkd up

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I must have missed that law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fked up hahahahahahahahahaha