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

[Marener]

Epic Failure.... Tell me again who controls licensing of these entities? These people are acting as publishers in the electronic-worldwide form. You want to try again? The FCC and/or the courts could shut them off in about a minuet for violations of section 230. The problem is the DOJ would have to request criminal or civil indictment. That will not happen if they are doing Pedo-Joe's bidding...

No one licenses these entities. You don’t need a license to have a website.

 

[westwall]

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. Once big tech joins up with the government they are no longer a private entity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

“Noncompliance with section 230”? That doesn’t make any sense. Section 230 doesn’t require compliance. It’s just an exemption from liability.

Biden can’t change anything about section 230. It’s law. He can’t take it away or alter it in any way.

You idiot.. They are in violation of section 230 already. Joe can CHOOSE to enforce the law or look the other way. By looking the other way, they can continue to censor and not fear prosecution. Pay for play... Goll -E- Gee

 

[Billy_Bob]

No one licenses these entities. You don’t need a license to have a website.

They are licensed if they are doing any form of broadcasting. By censoring they are acting as a publisher in electronic form which is broadcasting. There are two avenues to hit them over the head with but Biden has them locked up so they do not fear any reprisals.

Watch what happens when Republican retake congress... You will see how fast some of these people are shut down or broken up.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

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?

Well I personally think the reason you're having a hard time explaining things is because you're batshit crazy, but I'm just going on the dozens of posts I've read from you. But you are entertaining at times.

 

[Marener]

You idiot.. They are in violation of section 230 already. Joe can CHOOSE to enforce the law or look the other way. By looking the other way, they can continue to censor and not fear prosecution. Pay for play... Goll -E- Gee

That doesn’t even make sense. Section 230 doesn’t require social media websites to do anything so it’s not possible for them to violate it.

How do you think they’re violating section 230?

 

[dblack]

What hypocrisy?

Sure. Run an hide, chickenshit.

Or, answer the question:

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

It's a simple yes or no question. It's not a trick. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

If you answer yes, that - in my view - would establish you as an authoritarian statist with no regard for individual rights. End of discussion.

If you answer no, of course I'm going to ask you why it's different when the President does it? (or the federal government, or whatever).

But it doesn't seem like you're interested in trying to defending your views. Is it because they're indefensible?

 

[Marener]

They are licensed if they are doing any form of broadcasting. By censoring they are acting as a publisher in electronic form which is broadcasting. There are two avenues to hit them over the head with but Biden has them locked up so they do not fear any reprisals.

Watch what happens when Republican retake congress... You will see how fast some of these people are shut down or broken up.

They’re not broadcasting. They’re websites on the internet.

Holy hell. Do you understand how the internet works? How old are you?

 

[ColonelAngus]

PSAKI SAID IT HERSELF

Psaki says administration is working with Facebook to limit misinformation

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration is working with Facebook to limit misinformation on the coronavirus vaccine.

www.foxbusiness.com

"So we're regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives, dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans are seeing across all of social and traditional media. And we work to engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies," Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Friday during a press conference.

This is unconstitutional.

 

[dblack]

You idiot.. They are in violation of section 230 already. Joe can CHOOSE to enforce the law or look the other way. By looking the other way, they can continue to censor and not fear prosecution. Pay for play... Goll -E- Gee

What are you talking about? 230 doesn't say they can't censor.

 

[Blues Man]

Sure. Run an hide, chickenshit.

Or, answer the question:

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

It's a simple yes or no question. It's not a trick. I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

If you answer yes, that - in my view - would establish you as an authoritarian statist with no regard for individual rights. End of discussion.

If you answer no, of course I'm going to ask you why it's different when the President does it? (or the federal government, or whatever).

But it doesn't seem like you're interested in trying to defending your views. Is it because they're indefensible?

Not if all they did was "ask". Anyone can "ask" anything they want.

The real question is was there any ACTUAL coercion ?

So if aliens landed would you look forward to the anal probes?

 

[ColonelAngus]

It does. Once big tech joins up with the government they are no longer a private entity.

The cult loves censorship. They are communists.

Every one of these aggressive cultists…the idiots who got 20 boosters and still wear masks hate the US.

 

[dblack]

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

Not if all they did was "ask". Anyone can "ask" anything they want.

Hmmm.. ok, statist authoritarian it is. But I'm pretty confident the courts would have a problem with it. Legally, it's no different than a traffic cop "asking" for a blow job before he decides whether or not to give you a ticket.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What are you talking about? 230 doesn't say they can't censor.

When you are controlling content, you are censoring. Section 230 specifically stops them from doing this and if they do, they are no longer acting as a free platform but as a publisher. Section 230 was specifically designed to keep them from being sued for the opinions/postings of others. Once they began to control what is on the platform they are no longer acting as a free platform, but as a publisher. Censorship by another name.

 

[bripat9643]

Hypotheticals are a waste of time.

The mating call of the congenital moron.

 

[Blues Man]

Hmmm.. ok, statist authoritarian it is. But I'm pretty confident the courts would have a problem with it. Legally, it's no different than a traffic cop "asking" for a blow job before he decides whether or not to give you a ticket.

Another ASSumption.

"Asking" for something is not illegal.

COERCION is illegal

If you would have actually asked a question like If the cops asked a bar owner not to serve a people and threatened that bar owner with some sort of retaliation or the like if they didn't comply you would have a question worth answering.

Asking a question is nothing to get your panties in a twist about.

 

[Blues Man]

The mating call of the congenital moron.

If aliens landed would you look forward to the anal probes?

 

[bripat9643]

Another ASSumption.

"Asking" for something is not illegal.

COERCION is illegal

If you would have actually asked a question like If the cops asked a bar owner not to serve a people and threatened that bar owner with some sort of retaliation or the like if they didn't comply you would have a question worth answering.

Asking a question is nothing to get your panties in a twist about.

Yes, asking for something can be illegal, and a cop asking for a blow job while he's on duty is coercion.

 

[dblack]

When you are controlling content, you are censoring. Section 230 specifically stops them from doing this and if they do, they are no longer acting as a free platform but as a publisher. Section 230 was specifically designed to keep them from being sued for the opinions/postings of others. Once they began to control what is on the platform they are no longer acting as a free platform, but as a publisher. Censorship by another name.

I'm all for repealing section 230. It's merely a convenience law - to codify precedent that the courts had already settled on. But these kinds of laws tend to get used by the state for arm-twisting, like you're trying to do here. You want to pretend like it's as special perk and threaten to revoke it if companies don't do as they're told.

It's pretty much the same thing Biden is doing.

 

[dblack]

If you would have actually asked a question like If the cops asked a bar owner not to serve a people and threatened that bar owner with some sort of retaliation or the like if they didn't comply you would have a question worth answering.

Asking a question is nothing to get your panties in a twist about.

The power relationship is undeniable, and I'm pretty sure any court would agree with me. Even if the cop claimed it would have no bearing on his decision to write the ticket or not, asking for a blow job beforehand would be off limits. So would "asking" bars to refuse service to people the government doesn't like (right before they decide whether to renew the bar's liquor license).

We're a nation of laws, not arbitrary "requests" of state officials. If the government wants to tell social media who to ban, the need to pass a law establishing that authority and see if it passes Constitutional muster. Here's hoping it wouldn't.