The First Amendment is useless.

[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.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The "twitter and Facebook are private companies so they can censor" meme has been debunked 10000 times.

Then sue them and let us know how that goes for you.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

Facebook isn't the press, moron.

Freedom of speech is still on the side of Fakebook.

Not at all.
Facebook is pretending to be neutral when it is not, so then is committing fraud.
But more important is that Facebook is bound by the FCC regulations for fair use of the public internet, and it is completely illegal then for them to discriminate over political philosophy or association.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

Very possible.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[dblack]

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.

I realize that this is what you, and the Trumpsters, are after. Again - if you succeed, we're fucked.

 

[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,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

 

[Rigby5]

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.
The listed protected classes are ones that had such bad discrimination in the past, that they were then allowed to petition for explicit protection. In no way does that imply what is not explicit can then be discriminated against.
Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
Like there is no amendment on privacy.
That does not mean the right of privacy does not exist, and has been used many times by the court an a generic and unenumerated right.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.

Link please.

 

[dblack]

You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.

I don't believe this is true. And it would be an utterly insane policy if we attempted to enforce it.

Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.

Doublespeak for the win!

There's no such thing as a "right" to force other people to bend to your will.

 

[dblack]

You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.

Link please.

Wet dream.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

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.
That is identical to trying to not serve Blacks in an Alabama lunch counter.

Facebook does not claim to be a newspaper that only prints its own views.
It claims to be a neutral publisher of all views.
So then to discriminate based on certain political views is not only fraud, but harmful to those political views they arbitrarily decide to discriminate against.

A democratic republic can not withstand economic warfare within the country, based on political affiliation.
Political discrimination is harmful and against the law.

 

[Rigby5]

... 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,.)
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.