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

[occupied]

Govt, and their agents

It is an injunction against congress making laws restricting speech, protests, freedom of association or establishing a state religion. I've already covered that in this thread. All these were considered natural rights we already possessed by the founders. Now, show the class where posting on a social media platform can be considered a natural right?

 

[busybee01]

The problem is that The Swamp is making an end run around the Constitution.

No they are not. The government has free speech rights. They have every right to urge social media companies to be responsible.

 

[busybee01]

Sadly, you're mostly correct.

Though Biden can and should be impeached over this.

You want to abuse the impeachment process to go after your political enemies.

 

[busybee01]

Yes, these people think the Constitution is just an obstacle to be worked around.

Not rules to FOLLOW.

You think the Constitution protects you and no one else.

 

[busybee01]

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?!

What squeeze did they put on them?

 

[SeaMajor7]

You want to abuse the impeachment process to go after your political enemies.

After the Democrats did just EXACTLY THAT to Trump, you've got some nerve to even post that sentence.

 

[busybee01]

The way I read the landscape, POTUS is free to tell anyone to do anything, and everyone is free to tell him to go **** off.

He can TRY to coerce, intimidate, "enforce", but people will start screaming if he goes too far. (Which he has).

The PROBLEM in this equation, is that the Zuckerbergs of the world, DON'T tell him to go **** off.

That's a pretty serious problem, if you're a student of history. The economic system called fascism is DEFINED by the nexus between the corporations and the state.

The problem is, the corporations become part of enforcement. POLITICAL enforcement, not legal enforcement. For example, Zuckerberg seems to think his job is to "suppress misinformation", which is a purely political concept with a political goal and a political agenda.

If THAT goes too far the Boards of Directors can start screaming, but first of all they may or may not (scream), and secondly even if they do it may be too late.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Just because Zuckerburg agrees does not make it a conspiracy. Corporations have bought off the TRUMP Republican Party.

 

[busybee01]

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?

They do not have a case as neither a or b are true.

 

[busybee01]

After the Democrats did just EXACTLY THAT to Trump, you've got some nerve to even post that sentence.

The impeachment process was correct in both cases. Pressuring a foreign government to launch a phony investigation against a political opponent is impeachable. Inciting a attack against the Congress is a impeachable offense. You are the one who has the nerve.

 

[The Duke]

It is an injunction against congress making laws restricting speech, protests, freedom of association or establishing a state religion. I've already covered that in this thread. All these were considered natural rights we already possessed by the founders. Now, show the class where posting on a social media platform can be considered a natural right?

Posting on social media is only a natural right for Democrats and far leftists. Wrongthink is suppressed routinely.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The impeachment process was correct in both cases. Pressuring a foreign government to launch a phony investigation against a political opponent is impeachable. Inciting a attack against the Congress is a impeachable offense.

Both accusations were complete BULLSHIT!
The Democrats were calling for impeachment before Trump was sworn in, and you KNOW this!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Posting on social media is only a natural right for Democrats and far leftists. Wrongthink is suppressed routinely.

“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

 

[occupied]

Posting on social media is only a natural right for Democrats and far leftists. Wrongthink is suppressed routinely.

Most people realize that a social media platform is like a bar. If you cause trouble you get tossed out. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Lesh]

First Amendment

Shall make no LAW…

What law was passed that censors media platforms??

 

[SeaMajor7]

Most people realize that a social media platform is like a bar. If you cause trouble you get tossed out. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Define "trouble".

 

[Marener]

Posting on social media is only a natural right for Democrats and far leftists. Wrongthink is suppressed routinely.

It’s not a natural right for anyone.

You guys really need to be less obsessed with social media. Go touch grass. You’re turning into weirdos.

 

[occupied]

Define "trouble".

The owners of the platforms have a legal and ethical responsibility as corporations to see that their operation is not harmful to the public. These corporations can be held responsible for dangerous content in the same way a bar owner can be held responsible for what goes on in their place of business.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First Amendment

Shall make no LAW…

What law was passed that censors media platforms??

This one, by Democrats:


2. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

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.


"My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!"
Trump, SOTU 2020




Get it, you dunce???????

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s not a natural right for anyone.

You guys really need to be less obsessed with social media. Go touch grass. You’re turning into weirdos.

This is the sort of Nazi that government school turns out by the ton.

 

[The Duke]

Most people realize that a social media platform is like a bar. If you cause trouble you get tossed out. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Discrimination is not allowed in bars.