What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
haha of course it is…when xiden admin meets with them and tells them what to publish

no…the govt can’t tell a person or company what to say

that’s what we have the first amendment
The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this for reasons already discussed. Foremost among them is that it only applies to congress making laws and not to the executive or judicial branches acting within their legal authority.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,386
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
He still has to work around the ban rather than just using Facebook like everyone else.

It's always hilarious whenever progs get into this head in the sand mode.
He's still streaming his drivel on the internet.

He doesn't need Facebook to do that.

Face book is a private entity and can ban whoever it wants.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this for reasons already discussed. Foremost among them is that it only applies to congress making laws and not to the executive or judicial branches acting within their legal authority.
ROFL! The executive branch isn't acting within it's legal authority, NAZI. It has no authority to prevent people from speaking.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,137
Reaction score
9,857
Points
2,030
The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this for reasons already discussed. Foremost among them is that it only applies to congress making laws and not to the executive or judicial branches acting within their legal authority.
And where is the legal authority to tell websites who to censor?
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,254
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
The first amendment has nothing to do with any of this for reasons already discussed. Foremost among them is that it only applies to congress making laws and not to the executive or judicial branches acting within their legal authority.
haha yes the bill of rights doesn’t apply to president and tell courts

haha you really are a fascist
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
He's still streaming his drivel on the internet.

He doesn't need Facebook to do that.

Face book is a private entity and can ban whoever it wants.
He's jumping through hoops that other people don't have to use.

You can't possibly be this stupid.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
29,837
Reaction score
18,881
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
Incredibly relevant and necessary to demonstrate force being applied.

Without it, the allegation is baseless.
It has already been explained to you a dozen times that taxes are obtained through force.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,386
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
He's jumping through hoops that other people don't have to use.

You can't possibly be this stupid.
No he isn't. He is still on the web so I don't see what your problem is.

Facebook is a privately owned company and can refuse to offer their service to anyone it doesn't want on their platform
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,386
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
29,837
Reaction score
18,881
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Incredibly relevant and necessary to demonstrate force being applied.

Without it, the allegation is baseless.
All you need is payment of some kind. whether it be political benefits or money... And that has been established.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
No he isn't. He is still on the web so I don't see what your problem is.

Facebook is a privately owned company and can refuse to offer their service to anyone it doesn't want on their platform
I can't help it if you're a fucking moron.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,386
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
Yes, obviously.
REally?

You say that but I see no proof. All I see is private businesses exercising their right to not host people on their platform and I see people that you say have been banned are still on the internet
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,254
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
Incredibly relevant and necessary to demonstrate force being applied.

Without it, the allegation is baseless.
nope, an agent can conspire with the state to violate the law
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top