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

[dblack]

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.

Interesting. So churches get a special break, as long as they keep their mouths shut and stay out of politics?

 

[occupied]

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.

Is the government simply not allowed to act in the best interests of it's citizens when a fringe political belief starts costing lives? I think that's the argument you are making.

 

[Marener]

Utter horse squeeze.

By now it should be obvious to you and everyone else that I know what I’m talking about and you clearly don’t.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The problem is that both extremes are bad.
No moderation allows the internet to be used for slander, libel, fraudulent hysteria, sex-tortion, etc.
Too much moderation results in suppression of truth, political and religious freedom, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Is the government simply not allowed to act in the best interests of it's citizens when a fringe political belief starts costing lives? I think that's the argument you are making.

In general, censorship is bad because it is best if we hear it all and then let us decide what it true and what is false.

The fringe political beliefs that are costing lives seems to me to be the government lying about things like Iraqi WMD, GITMO torture, the illegal War on Drugs, gun control, federal health care myths, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Interesting. So churches get a special break, as long as they keep their mouths shut and stay out of politics?

That is the way it is supposed to be.
They are supposed to be taxed if they push any particular agenda, instead of just being a neutral social positive.

 

[occupied]

In general, censorship is bad because it is best if we hear it all and then let us decide what it true and what is false.

The fringe political beliefs that are costing lives seems to me to be the government lying about things like Iraqi WMD, GITMO torture, the illegal War on Drugs, gun control, federal health care myths, etc.

You hear it all anyway somehow. Still trying to find all this right wing censorship when all the Trumpbots seem to get in lockstep at lightning speed.

 

[dblack]

That is the way it is supposed to be.

It may be the intent of the law, but it's a direct violation of the First Amendment.

They are supposed to be taxed if they push any particular agenda, instead of just being a neutral social positive.

Right. I understand the point of the law. And it IS an effective means of controlling religion. I just think that's wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Is the government simply not allowed to act in the best interests of it's citizens when a fringe political belief starts costing lives? I think that's the argument you are making.

Limiting speech is never in anyone's best interest, you fucking NAZI.

 

[bripat9643]

By now it should be obvious to you and everyone else that I know what I’m talking about and you clearly don’t.

It's obvious that everyone know you're a clueless moron.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

When you have a court decision that states a police officer merely asking a question is coercion you let me know.

 

[xyz]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

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

No, it's not. You think they should put Al khaida and IS propaganda on that? You think they should encourage kids to commit suicide?

You are the worst, most toxic slime that exists on Earth.

 

[dblack]

When you have a court decision that states a police officer merely asking a question is coercion you let me know.

I assume they're are many. If I were arguing the case in court, I'd go find 'em. In the mean time, I'm gonna go with my initial claim. Cops, or other agents of government, don't have the arbitrary power to go around telling people what to do, even if it IS framed as a "request".

 

[dblack]

No, it's not. You think they should put Al khaida and IS propaganda on that? You think they should encourage kids to commit suicide?

You are the worst, most toxic slime that exists on Earth.

Of course the state can, and should, intervene in cases where speech causes harm (libel, fire in a crowded theater, threats of violence, etc... ). Those are usually pretty clear cut cases, and not political in nature. What we're talking about here is instructions to silence ideas and narratives that the current regime might find politically inconvenient. They'll of course claim that the targets of censorship are "misinformation" or "chinese hackers", and maybe they are, but it's a dangerous grey area.

Silencing the Hunter Biden story, to me, crosses a line. Trump supporters have a legitimate beef and I support their efforts to investigate the matter. We can't allow a sitting regime to use its power to manipulate elections.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it's not. You think they should put Al khaida and IS propaganda on that? You think they should encourage kids to commit suicide?

You are the worst, most toxic slime that exists on Earth.

Tax money doesn't pay for Al Qaeda propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Taxes pay the salaries of the government officials who negotiated this horseshit

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yep, that means it can't pay government officials to negotiate any such agreement.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It isn't the result that is not permitted, moron. It's the activity. If I point a gun at you and pull the trigger, am I innocent if I miss?

 

[bripat9643]

Congress has made no law telling the social media companies to ban certain people. There is no 1st amendment argument that prevents the white house from doing anything. It does not apply to them.

Government officials do it on the taxpayer dime. That isn't one of their official duties, so it's against the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Government has every right to ask social media companies to be careful of what they allow on their platforms. There are still no problems.

It has no such right, douchebag.