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?

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
It’s not as long as there’s no force.
How can there be no force involved when his salary is paid with taxpayer money?
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
I never used Facebook so I just don't see what the big deal about it is.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
29,837
Reaction score
18,881
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
It’s not as long as there’s no force.
Let me see.... Threats to remove publisher protections if they did not comply with his request is the use of FORCE. You people are so damn gullible...
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
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
You are a fucking moron.

End of discussion.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,137
Reaction score
9,857
Points
2,030
No he isn't. He is still on the web so I don't see what your problem is.
LOL - that's like telling someone who was beat, nearly to death, "What are you whining about? You're still breathing. 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.
They can. But what if it wasn't their idea?

Look at another scenario. If the local police kept a list of "troublemakers", and "asked" the local bars to refuse service to them. Would you have a problem with that?
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
You are a fucking moron.

End of discussion.
Yes there is no discussion because Alex Jones is still on the web streaming his shows and shilling his products every day
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
2,740
Points
163
Let me see.... Threats to remove publisher protections if they did not comply with his request is the use of FORCE. You people are so damn gullible...
It’s impossible for the White House to do so.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
LOL - that's like telling someone who was beat, nearly to death, "What are you whining about? You're still breathing. I don't see what your problem is."

They can. But what if it wasn't their idea?

Look at another scenario. If the local police kept a list of "troublemakers", and "asked" the local bars to refuse service to them. Would you have a problem with that?
So Facebook not allowing some people to use their platform is now the same as getting beaten nearly to death?

Alex Jones still looks like a fat slob I don't think he's on death's door because of facebook but rather because he's a fat slob
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
Yes there is no discussion because Alex Jones is still on the web streaming his shows and shilling his products every day
You already admitted he has to jump through hoops to do it.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,137
Reaction score
9,857
Points
2,030
So Facebook not allowing some people to use their platform is now the same as getting beaten nearly to death?
I can never quite tell whether you're playing dumb, or not playing. We're talking about government coercing FB into doing their bidding.
Alex Jones still looks like a fat slob I don't think he's on death's door because of facebook but rather because he's a fat slob
I wouldn't piss on Jones if he were on fire. But this isn't about Jones. This is about the legal principles that our society is founded on. You idiots are ready to toss them away, just to get one over on people you don't like.
 
Last edited:

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
29,837
Reaction score
18,881
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
It’s impossible for the White House to do so.
Bull shit... Section 230 is enforced by the FCC which is under the direction of the executive. He can choose to not enforce it just as he does our immigration laws. Quit being deceptive.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
I can never quite tell whether you playing dumb, or not playing. We're talking about government coercing FB into doing their bidding.

I wouldn't piss on Jones if he were on fire. But this isn't about Jones. This is about the legal principles that our society is founded on. You idiots are ready to toss them away, just to get one over on people you don't like.

I still haven't seen proof that the government actually coerced anyone into banning people
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
59,732
Reaction score
16,673
Points
2,220
Location
Near Magnolia, TX

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 guess you're not familiar with the "incorporation doctrine". Perhaps you should do some research before you make a bigger ass of yourself.

.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top