What if...

[sakinago]

Let’s say hypothetically there was a crime ridden region or city in the untied states. The law enforcement agency in this region could not adequately employ enough cops to police the area. So as a solution the government or maybe even the community itself decides to contract out the policing to a private security force. Eventually this force, being a private entity, starts taking liberties with its policing that not even the government can take. Say for instance warrantless searches and seizures. Or they decide to discriminate against, with excess scrutiny, all people who live on a certain block because this is the home block of a particularly dangerous gang. Some people get pissed off at this and take it up with the company. Their response is, “hey, we’re just trying to make this a safe place for everyone”. Some people start petitioning the actual government and the media that this private force is violating their god given rights. The response from both media and government is simply, well it’s a private entity, we can’t do anything, a majority of the people want this for safety, if you don’t like it you can move out of this region.

Now, this seems like a absurd scenario. That this would never happen in America. Yet we see it happening with big tech censorship, as well as vaccine mandates, either coerced from the fed, or companies just thinking it’s a good idea regardless. These are huge violations of the 1st and 4th amendments, but I guess because it’s from private entities, there is nothing we can do about it, huh? There’s a famous SCOTUS case from just a few years ago, which was some pedophile vs South Carolina, and SCOTUS overwhelmingly ruled that SC cannot ban even the most sick pedophiles from social media, because of how integral social media has become to how we communicate as a nation. That’d be a violation of 1st amendment rights. Tell me how exactly does any of this make sense?

 

[Otis Mayfield]

"Yet we see it happening with big tech censorship, as well as vaccine mandates, either coerced from the fed, or companies just thinking it’s a good idea regardless."

That doesn't make any sense. How does what you say relate to a gang?

 

[RodISHI]

Let’s say hypothetically there was a crime ridden region or city in the untied states. The law enforcement agency in this region could not adequately employ enough cops to police the area. So as a solution the government or maybe even the community itself decides to contract out the policing to a private security force. Eventually this force, being a private entity, starts taking liberties with its policing that not even the government can take. Say for instance warrantless searches and seizures. Or they decide to discriminate against, with excess scrutiny, all people who live on a certain block because this is the home block of a particularly dangerous gang. Some people get pissed off at this and take it up with the company. Their response is, “hey, we’re just trying to make this a safe place for everyone”. Some people start petitioning the actual government and the media that this private force is violating their god given rights. The response from both media and government is simply, well it’s a private entity, we can’t do anything, a majority of the people want this for safety, if you don’t like it you can move out of this region.

Now, this seems like a absurd scenario. That this would never happen in America. Yet we see it happening with big tech censorship, as well as vaccine mandates, either coerced from the fed, or companies just thinking it’s a good idea regardless. These are huge violations of the 1st and 4th amendments, but I guess because it’s from private entities, there is nothing we can do about it, huh? There’s a famous SCOTUS case from just a few years ago, which was some pedophile vs South Carolina, and SCOTUS overwhelmingly ruled that SC cannot ban even the most sick pedophiles from social media, because of how integral social media has become to how we communicate as a nation. That’d be a violation of 1st amendment rights. Tell me how exactly does any of this make sense?

Its a problem that has been building for awhile. Too many unconscionable peeps out there in this world to give a few too much power.

 

[rightwinger]

We have already privatized our prisons with private companies making profit off of our convicts

 

[sakinago]

"Yet we see it happening with big tech censorship, as well as vaccine mandates, either coerced from the fed, or companies just thinking it’s a good idea regardless."

That doesn't make any sense. How does what you say relate to a gang?

I’ll take “over my head” for 400 Alex. You’re missing the point. By a lot. Gangs are just justification for the private company to discriminate against citizens. The whole point of this thread is when is it okay for private entities to violate constitutionally enshrined rights.

 

[sakinago]

We have already privatized our prisons with private companies making profit off of our convicts

So is you’re argument that it’s okay for that to happen, therefore this scenario is honky dory?

 

[rightwinger]

So is you’re argument that it’s okay for that to happen, therefore this scenario is honky dory?

I’m using it as an example of what shouldn’t happen

 

[sakinago]

I’m using it as an example of what shouldn’t happen

So what about big tech? Vaccine mandates?

 

[AntonToo]

huge violations of the 1st and 4th amendments

Wow really? Maybe you can point to a judicial ruling saying that?

 

[rightwinger]

So what about big tech? Vaccine mandates?

Nothing to do with the hypothetical that was offered

 

[colfax_m]

Eventually this force, being a private entity, starts taking liberties with its policing that not even the government can take. Say for instance warrantless searches and seizures. Or they decide to discriminate against, with excess scrutiny, all people who live on a certain block because this is the home block of a particularly dangerous gang. Some people get pissed off at this and take it up with the company. Their response is, “hey, we’re just trying to make this a safe place for everyone”. Some people start petitioning the actual government and the media that this private force is violating their god given rights. The response from both media and government is simply, well it’s a private entity, we can’t do anything, a majority of the people want this for safety, if you don’t like it you can move out of this region.

If a private entity is violating your rights, you have recourse through the courts. This would not be legal.

 

[sakinago]

Wow really? Maybe you can point to a judicial ruling saying that?

I mean I already did for big tech. What’s the argument? That pedophiles who were arrested for trying to solicit sex from minors on social media have a right to be on it...but the duly elected POTUS is too dangerous for social media, or people who say “it looks like this virus came from a lab” are too dangerous, or people who say “actually ivermectin isn’t just cattle dewormer, it won the Nobel prize in 2015 for humans for saving millions of lives” are too dangerous? Apparently there’s a right to not have to pay to live in someone else’s property, even though no such right exists anywhere in the Highest law of the land, but the whole freedom of speech, the very first amendment should be ignored because, well speech is dangerous, and we can’t have people saying crazy things like “covid came from a lab, not from bats living in a cave 1000 miles away from ground zero, during their hibernation season”.

As for vaccine mandates, it’s part of the EUA that they CANNOT be mandated. AND NO, the vaccines being pushed, ARE NOT FDA approved. A vaccine that is not even manufactured is what got approved. Not the ones currently being given. Also, what ever happened to “my body, my choice”??? Um, I guess we overturned Roe V Wade, yay. The entire basis of medical ethics is founded on informed consent. For which we are neither informed, nor able to consent too. The other big part of medical ethics is right to privacy. To not have to put your medical laundry out there for all to see. Now there are hospital refusing treatment to the unvaccinated.... So the real question is what area of medical ethics have we not violated? All for vaccines that neither stop transmission or spread, and provide zero notable effect on viral load...at best. Unless you want to listen to the crazies at Oxford, which is only the best ranked university in the world, titers are actually up 250 times in the vaccinated.

 

[sakinago]

Nothing to do with the hypothetical that was offered

*eyeroll* Sure it doesn’t. Ignored. Is there anyone capable of honest conversations anymore?

 

[rightwinger]

That pedophiles who were arrested for trying to solicit sex from minors on social media have a right to be on it...

You have any proof where that has happened or are you just making it up?

 

[AntonToo]

What’s the argument? That pedophiles who were arrested for trying to solicit sex from minors on social media have a right to be on it...but the duly elected POTUS is too dangerous for social media, or people who say “it looks like this virus came from a lab” are too dangerous, or people who say “actually ivermectin isn’t just cattle dewormer, it won the Nobel prize in 2015 for humans for saving millions of lives” are too dangerous?

The argument is that social media sites are PRIVATE COMPANIES and in no way is your freedom of speech abridged just because they set their own standards for posting and/or don't want you posting on their site.

Don't like Facebook's rules and regulation? Go to some other website.

That is WHY you can't actually point to a court backing up your opinion that something unconstitutional is going on here.

 

[Resnic]

What would happen isn't private police, but government police.

That's what they are shooting for is to have their hand in individual states business. And as they seed more states with their people and illegals they will gradually have people who support their taking more control.

Why else would they be doing everything they can to cause problems for America. Shortages, low employment rates, floods of illegals, mandates, inflation and a lot more. It's to cause problems so they can step in and say "Everything is fucked up but don't worry we're here to fix it"

 

[sakinago]

If a private entity is violating your rights, you have recourse through the courts. This would not be legal.

LMFAO, tell that to dredd Scott. Sure colfax, let’s not think for ourselves because we have to let the courts do our ethical thinking, hypothetical or real, for us. Yes, let’s continue on with unconstitutional judicial supremacy, that’s worked so well for us in the past, expect for the times it doesn’t worn for us, then we ignore it. The deflections on the left couldn’t be more obvious. Yeah Prager did. SCOTUS found that it was perfectly okay for google to label and suppress a video about “thou shalt not murder” as “adult content” on YouTube, but ya know, a video with 2 gay guys playing “dick or dildo?” (Which is exactly how it sounds, one dude shoves something in another’s ass, and they guess whether it’s his cock or not) isn’t adult content. Yeah go ahead and put dick or dildo into the watch next suggestions with the Elmo videos.

The truth, and we all know this to be true, is that the left only loves Stare Decisis after some crazy judge completely explodes every other decision that came before their ruling. Take for instance gay marriage. First it was “the issue should be left up to the states”. Then 2 years later, the exact same SCOTUS ruled that states have no say in the matter. So spare me the “take it up with courts” when SCOTUS rules that a fucking casino has the right to use eminent domain to forcibly take my land for a goddamned parking lot (Kelo). It’s a joke. Our government is an orgy of cronyism, but if a trucker in Montana decides to donate 15 grand to a candidate, his ass will be thrown in prison.

So, if you’re capable of deciding what ethically sounds right or wrong, is the scenario I laid out ethically right or wrong?

 

[sakinago]

The argument is that social media sites are PRIVATE COMPANIES and in no way is your freedom of speech abridged just because they set their own standards for posting and/or don't want you posting on their site.

Don't like Facebook's rules and regulation? Go to some other website.

That is WHY you can't actually point to a court backing up your opinion that something unconstitutional is going on here.

Yeah, SCOTUS ruled that because social media is such a integral part of speech, that banning pedophiles is actually a violation of pedophiles free speech rights. A convenience store owner with a community cork board can’t take down a pro-abortion flyer because that’s a public forum, and violates free speech rights. But I guess as long as government outsources tyranny to private companies, it’s all good in the hood? This isn’t even mentioning how intertwined big tech and government are. The outrageous government contracts that big tech has, the fact that they basically supply all the NSA data for government, and the revolving door of big tech executives getting government positions and vis versa. Yeah just go to a different site. Oh wait. We did. We did Parler. What happened there? Jesus you people have zero shame. It’s incredible.

 

[HappyJoy]

Eventually

 

[Harpy Eagle]

These are huge violations of the 1st and 4th amendments, but I guess because it’s from private entities, there is nothing we can do about it, huh?

It is literally impossible for a private entity to violate your 1st 1st and 4th amendment rights