What if...

[HappyJoy]

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

Are they acting on behalf of government?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are they acting on behalf of government?

If they are acting on behalf of government then it is the government doing it

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Alright. Don’t take it up with the courts. What do I care? If someone assaults you or attempts to take your property, defend yourself as you see fit.

This gibberish is pointless.

 

[g5000]

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?

Apples and oranges fallacy.

 

[sakinago]

Apples and oranges fallacy.

So the most powerful tool since the printing press for free speech, in social media that markets itself as a “town square” can be regulated as long as it’s done so by a private entity. Again, the SCOTUS ruled that because it’s so crucial to 1st amendment rights that they can’t even ban pedophiles from social media. Total apples and oranges. I don’t know why I expected anything other than deflection from the left.

 

[sakinago]

It’s an easy google search, I’m not doing anyone’s homework for them so they can make an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

Your OP suffers from the Straw Man Fallacy. None of the things the government is doing violates the Constitution, or endangers the public.

Big Tech is nothing like a police force and no one is being harmed by their policies except liars and scammers.

 

[sakinago]

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

The state constitution in which these companies operate from begs to differ

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Burgermeister]

Eventually

View attachment 562529

 

[Leo123]

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

RW is a troll, he doesn't really think.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The state constitution in which these companies operate from begs to differ

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thank goodness I do not live in Cali, but my point still is valid for the US 1st Amendment

 

[HappyJoy]

Probably more realistic.