Why does it not violate the first ammendment for the White House and FBI tell social media platforms who to ban?

[ColonelAngus]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.

 

[occupied]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.

Have you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Have you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?

Translation -- "I dunno".

 

[occupied]

Translation -- "I dunno".

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I carry a copy of it in my purse, thank you.

I don't need to read it to know that all your posts are purposely oblique bullshit.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.

Where is your confirmed reference to such a violation?

From the apparent evidence, it appears that the law applies to Democrats differently than the Republicans. The government is improperly organized and that means that things will get screwy. I am having a lot of difficulty explaining this because everyone thinks the founders were absolutely brilliant and any mistakes in the Constitution can be fixed with amendments. I'll bet you think that way - don't you?

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[occupied]

I carry a copy of it in my purse, thank you.

I don't need to read it to know that all your posts are purposely oblique bullshit.

One of the great misunderstandings about the first amendment is that It does not grant you any specific rights nor does it apply to anyone other than congress. The writers of the constitution considered speech to a natural right. That means you take responsibility for your words. It does not protect malicious or dangerous speech from government push back nor does it apply at all to social media companies.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

One of the great misunderstandings about the first amendment is that It does not grant you any specific rights nor does it apply to anyone other than congress. The writers of the constitution considered speech to a natural right. That means you take responsibility for your words. It does not protect malicious or dangerous speech from government push back nor does it apply at all to social media companies.

But it sure does allow you to talk forever.

 

[dblack]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

Of course it is. Do you have any proof that this happened? Have any companies complained that they were bullied by the government?

 

[occupied]

But it sure does allow you to talk forever.

I say what's on my mind and then I listen. I'm listening for any indication that you now have a better understanding of the topic at hand.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I say what's on my mind and then I listen. I'm listening for any indication that you now have a better understanding of the topic at hand.

But it sure does allow you to talk forever.

 

[occupied]

But it sure does allow you to talk forever.

Well that's what I get for casting pearls before a stupid swine. I blame myself.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Well that's what I get for casting pearls before a stupid swine. I blame myself.

Aw, what a nice thing for you to say.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Working around the Constitution to censor citizens is not ok.

 

[occupied]

Working around the Constitution to censor citizens is not ok.

And yet somehow all the Trumpbots are able to get in lockstep on any issue within minutes. Where's all this censorship that's so inhibiting the ability to of right wingers to communicate their ideas? No what you want is to not be held responsible for the things you say and for there not to be any official push back on dangerous bullshit.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Have you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?

You would have been fine with Trump censoring Steele Dossier news.

Interesting.

According to you, its fine.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A government agency providing who the private social media companies should censor violates the freedom of speech of the the person using social media. If it was the company alone, no problem as they are not the government.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

And yet somehow all the Trumpbots are able to get in lockstep on any issue within minutes. Where's all this censorship that's so inhibiting the ability to of right wingers to communicate their ideas? No what you want is to not be held responsible for the things you say and for there not to be any official push back on dangerous bullshit.

Damn! Somebody pushed its button again!

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.

It does, but the platforms are in lockstep with the government and don't care.