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

[busybee01]

Discrimination is not allowed in bars.

You can be removed or refused service under certain conditions.

 

[Slade3200]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

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

Can you post a link with what you’re talking about? I haven’t heard about the feds forcing social media companies to ban users

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government has every right to impose conditions for tax exempt organizations.

No it doesn't, NAZI.

The Constitution says nothing about churches and taxes. Churches are at the forefront of the attack on our country. They think churchges should be running this country.

What you really mean is that churches generally don't support Democrats, so you want to destroy them.

 

[busybee01]

Wrong.

Only if they don't control content, moron. If they do control content, then they aren't entitled to protection from being sued. You have it precisely backwards.

You are wrong. They have a right to refuse service under certain circumstances.

 

[Marener]

Your theory a lie, douchebag. Why would they need protection from lawsuits if they can control content?

Because they can’t possibly verify every post to determine whether it is defamatory.

 

[busybee01]

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

Anne Applebaum, who observes about Soviet-era suppression: “Actual censors were not always needed. Instead, a form of pervasive peer pressure convinced writers, journalists and everyone else to toe the party line; if they did not, they knew they risked being ejected from their jobs and shunned by their friends.”

JONATHAN TURLEY: I want to emphasize that a lot of people on the left that have said if it's not prohibited on the First Amendment, it's not a free speech issue. That's not true. The First Amendment is not the exclusive domain of free speech. What they are doing is shutting down free speech. The left has come on to a winning strategy. …. they've discovered that if they use corporations to control speech, it falls outside the First Amendment. But it's not true that what they're doing is not a free speech attack. It is. They're trying to stop people from speaking on these platforms…. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-rogan-spotify-jonathan-turley-left-silence-free-speech



"5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.
bans social media companies from censoring users’ viewpoints is constitutionally allowed, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, in a blow to Facebook, Twitter and Google.
The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies."

5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again

The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.

www.politico.com

This is so much nonsense. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and it is the exact opposite. The fifth is not applying the rule of law.

 

[busybee01]

And we thought we defeated that sort of view in WWII.

Then they took over the schools and the media, with this result.

You are the Nazi who is attacking this country. You are the ones who we defeated in WWII. You are the ones trying to take over schools and the media.

 

[busybee01]

No it doesn't, NAZI.


What you really mean is that churches generally don't support Democrats, so you want to destroy them.

Yes it does NAZI. Tell me what section of the Constitution makes tax exempt status a right.

 

[westwall]

You can be removed or refused service under certain conditions.

But not at the behest of the government. Do that, and the social media companies are in violation of the COTUS, and their 230 status.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[westwall]

You are the Nazi who is attacking this country. You are the ones who we defeated in WWII. You are the ones trying to take over schools and the media.

Squeals the jackass pushing MANDATES!


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[bripat9643]

You are wrong. They have a right to refuse service under certain circumstances.

Not if they want 230 protection, numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Because they can’t possibly verify every post to determine whether it is defamatory.

Which is why the government gives protection only if they Don't control content. If they can review the content, then there's no reason to give them an exemption.

 

[bripat9643]

You are wrong. They have a right to refuse service under certain circumstances.

Not if they want to be exempt from lawsuits.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it does NAZI. Tell me what section of the Constitution makes tax exempt status a right.

You're changing the subject from censorship to the exempt status of churches.

 

[Marener]

Which is why the government gives protection only if they Don't control content. If they can review the content, then there's no reason to give them an exemption.

The reason to give them an exemption is that the government actually wanted to promote companies to review content. Companies didn’t want to review content if it meant they had to take legal liability for anything they missed. So government gave them the ability to review content without having to take on liability.

What you keep missing is that government doesn’t need to give protection to social media platforms that don’t moderate. That already existed.

 

[dblack]

230 says they operate as a PORTAL. The second they begin editing they lose 230 status.

DURRRRRR

sigh - more equivocation. Whatever. As I said, I'm all for repealing it. Those laws are only passed so asswipes like you can lord it over companies and threaten to fuck up their shit if they don't do as they're told.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Not quite.
While the Bill of Rights originally was just limits on the federal government, after the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights became the means of discerning what important individual rights were.
So after the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" by the 14th amendment, they now are individual rights to be defended from abuse by stated, cities, employers, etc.

And your initial premise is also wrong because the Internet is federal, so all providers are supposed to follow FCC rules on not discriminating against political beliefs.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The company should also be prevented from arbitrary censorship since the internet is run by the feds and under FCC fairness rules, and the 14th amendment means individual rights can also be protected from abuse by companies.

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't, NAZI.


What you really mean is that churches generally don't support Democrats, so you want to destroy them.

Churches are specifically exempt. So are organizations to education, like historical societies.
But actually those that lobby for political goals are not supposed to be exempt from paying taxes on their income, salaries, etc.

 

[bripat9643]

The reason to give them an exemption is that the government actually wanted to promote companies to review content. Companies didn’t want to review content if it meant they had to take legal liability for anything they missed. So government gave them the ability to review content without having to take on liability.

What you keep missing is that government doesn’t need to give protection to social media platforms that don’t moderate. That already existed.

Utter horse squeeze.