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

[bripat9643]

Government officials can urge private companies to be responsible.

No they can't. Your idea of "responsible" means pumping out prog propaganda and censoring any views you disagree with

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it does you assho;le.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

You think government has no free speech rights.

Nope. It has no rights whatsoever.

 

[westwall]

Social media companies are not in violation of everything.

Yes, they are. When they engage in censorship at the behest of the government that regulates them, you bet your ass they are.

 

[bripat9643]

Private property owners can limit speech on their property.

The speech doesn't remain on their property. According to your theory property owners can discriminate against black people

 

[jc456]

You think government has no free speech rights.

Not to interfere

 

[bripat9643]

Not to interfere

It has none at all. It has no rights, period.

 

[Blues Man]

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".

ASSume all you want.

I want actual proof.

 

[dblack]

I want actual proof.

I can't care.

 

[Blues Man]

I can't care.

So you can't prove what you say got it

 

[dblack]

So you can't prove what you say got it

You bet! Whatever you say man.