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

[occupied]

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.

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.

 

[EvMetro]

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.

In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[EvMetro]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

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

Indeed. In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[occupied]

In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

Social media plaforms are not private persons. They are publicly held corporations.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

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.

And there is no constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Let's see if that argument stands up in court, dumbass!

 

[occupied]

And there is no constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion.

Deflection attempt noted and rejected.

 

[Marener]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

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

Because the social media company is under no obligation to do anything the government says.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Deflection attempt noted and rejected.

Translation: "I got nothing".

 

[occupied]

Let's see if that argument stands up in court, dumbass!

The executive branch has the power to pressure corporations to act in the best interests of the public. This can be done by various regulatory means or with the threat of being held civilly or criminally responsible for their actions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The executive branch has the power to pressure corporations to act in the best interests of the public. This can be done by various regulatory means or with the threat of being held civilly or criminally responsible for their actions.

That is censorship, dumbass!

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The executive branch has the power to pressure corporations to act in the best interests of the public. This can be done by various regulatory means or with the threat of being held civilly or criminally responsible for their actions.

A side of ranch with that, please. No croutons.

 

[occupied]

That is censorship, dumbass!

Again, the first amendment applies only to congress making laws. It does not constrain the executive branch at all in it's dealings with publicly held corporations. Call it censorship if you like but it's not a first amendment issue.

 

[busybee01]

This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

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

There is no violation of the first amendment. Government has the right to jawbone companies to be responsible in allowing what goes on their platform. They cannpot take punitive action against a company. Try again.

 

[Care4all]

Indeed. In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

FYI

Norwood v. Harrison (1973 )

Norwood v. Harrison (1973) found a program that provided textbooks to private schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment but not the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

mtsu.edu

In Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973), the Supreme Court unanimously found that a Mississippi program that provided textbooks to private schools, even if the school engaged in discriminatory practices, was unconstitutional. In so ruling, it found that the requirements of nondiscrimination violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but not the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Mississippi provided textbooks to discriminatory schools​

The case was brought by parents of schoolchildren who claimed that because the state program provided textbooks to schools that excluded students on the basis of race, the state was providing direct aid to segregated education, thus violating the equal protection clause.

A three-judge federal district court upheld the program because the state had enacted the legislation in 1940 not with the purpose of creating racially segregated schools, but to provide aid to students who chose to attend private schools. The district court also found the supply of textbooks to be consistent with earlier Supreme Court opinions that allowed states to provide textbooks to students attending private sectarian schools because the books were an aid to the students, not the schools.

Court said program did not violate First Amendment​

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger first affirmed the right of private schools to exist. The court had previously held that states could provide aid to private school students under the Lemon test, which required that the effect of the aid had a secular purpose, was neutral toward the advancement of religion, and did not create an excessive entanglement between the state and government. Based on these criteria, Chief Justice Burger found that the Mississippi program did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

 

[busybee01]

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.

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

 

[busybee01]

And there is no constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion.

The Constitution staters that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about judicial review either.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The Constitution staters that a right does not have to be enumerated in the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about judicial review either.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It seems to me it does, but I can never get a straight answer.

 

[miketx]

I don't think it does. It's close probably but the commies being told are doing it not the gov.