Rigby5
Diamond Member
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
The "twitter and Facebook are private companies so they can censor" meme has been debunked 10000 times.
Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.
How do you figure?
Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.
Why?They are obligated if they print the views of everyone else.That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.
Facebook isn't the press, moron.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.
Freedom of speech is still on the side of Fakebook.
Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.
How do you figure?
Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.
It's next.
... it is completely illegal then for them to discriminate over political philosophy or association.
"The First Amendment is useless" ... because I can't use it to force Facebook to host Trumpster propaganda.
"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.
Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.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.
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.
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,,"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.
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,,Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.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.
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.
Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.
How do you figure?
Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.
You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.
You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.
Doublespeak for the win!Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.
Link please.
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.
Why?They are obligated if they print the views of everyone else.That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.
... 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.