Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
While disgusting, it's a VERY thin line being walked, and MAY be constitutionally protected in some ways.This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.
It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.
The problem is that The Swamp is making an end run around the Constitution.I carry a copy of it in my purse, thank you.
I don't need to read it to know that all your posts are purposely oblique bullshit.
Concur.Working around the Constitution to censor citizens is not ok.
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.
Sadly, you're mostly correct.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.
The problem is that The Swamp is making an end run around the Constitution.
This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.
It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.
Where is that?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.
Right. The government could not pay for the books in these private schools that discriminated, because discrimination was illegal, and unconstitutional, while they could pay for them in other private schools that did not discriminate.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.”
So what are you telling us, Unoccupied, that the Fed has found a loophole in getting around the intention of the Framers by using an unelected Intel agency to put the squeeze on private data companies to do their dirty work of political oppression FOR them?!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.
Well that's what I get for casting pearls before a stupid swine. I blame myself.
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.
That's a bit of a stretch, in relation to precedent for this issue.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.”
Well... so the case would have to be made that eitherRight. The government could not pay for the books in these private schools that discriminated, because discrimination was illegal, and unconstitutional, while they could pay for them in other private schools that did not discriminate.
Hmmm... The question was whether tax payers money could be used for paying for school books for children going to a private school that did not allow black children attend the school. Or children of gays, or jews etc?Well... so the case would have to be made that either
a) the Terms of Service are discriminatory, or
b) the APPLICATION of the Terms of Service is discriminatory.
Part (b) should be a no-brainer in relation to Facebook and Twitter.
Who's going to bring the suit, though?
Govt, and their agentsHave you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?
Hmmm... The question was whether tax payers money could be used for paying for school books for children going to a private school that did not allow black children attend the school. Or children of gays, or jews etc?
Who is discriminating against a race, religion, sex etc??? One of the by law, protected category or groups???
I guess I am slow, and am still not connecting the similarities to this?
