What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
2,740
Points
163
This is the sort of Nazi that government school turns out by the ton.
If there were 21st century Nazis, they would be the ones using government to force social media companies to bend to their will through threats of force.

Actually there are 21st century’s Nazis and for some reason Republicans are passing laws forcing social media companies to disseminate their hatred. I guess they’re kindred spirits.

Strange world we live in.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,501
Reaction score
59,360
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
If there were 21st century Nazis, they would be the ones using government to force social media companies to bend to their will through threats of force.

Actually there are 21st century’s Nazis and for some reason Republicans are passing laws forcing social media companies to disseminate their hatred. I guess they’re kindred spirits.

Strange world we live in.



Try to get that Democrat boot polish off your tongue, buffoon.
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
Discrimination is not allowed in bars.
There is no discrimination in our hypothetical bar until someone starts shit. They got to come in and order a drink and say anything they wanted right up to the point they stop following the rules of the establishment.
 

SeaMajor7

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
929
Reaction score
1,094
Points
883
Location
Long Island, NY
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.
Obtuse much? Now The People's OPINIONS are deemed "dangerous content"?
Where are these "legal and ethical responsibilities" defined?
Are social media outlets platforms or publishers?
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,501
Reaction score
59,360
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Obtuse much? Now The People's OPINIONS are deemed "dangerous content"?
Where are these "legal and ethical responsibilities" defined?
Are social media outlets platforms or publishers?


And we thought we defeated that sort of view in WWII.

Then they took over the schools and the media, with this result.
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
Obtuse much? Now The People's OPINIONS are deemed "dangerous content"?
Where are these "legal and ethical responsibilities" defined?
Are social media outlets platforms or publishers?
If you can't carry on right wing politics without dangerous lies and incitement to violence that's a problem with you. These platforms make the rules and are responsible for their content. If you don't like it you do not have to be there.
 

SeaMajor7

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
929
Reaction score
1,094
Points
883
Location
Long Island, NY
If you can't carry on right wing politics without dangerous lies and incitement to violence that's a problem with you. These platforms make the rules and are responsible for their content. If you don't like it you do not have to be there.
That's flat-out PROJECTION! :rolleyes:
And fuck those "platforms", I don't use them at all. This place is the only "platform" I post to online.
There's no feigning of the "dangers" of free speech here, why can't it be that way on Twitter or FB?
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
That's flat-out PROJECTION! :rolleyes:
And fuck those "platforms", I don't use them at all. This place is the only "platform" I post to online.
There's no feigning of the "dangers" of free speech here, why can't it be that way on Twitter or FB?
You can be thrown off this board for breaking the rules. They will delete posts containing threats, racist white supremacy, scams or dangerous medical quackery just like any place else.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
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?
when the demafasict use private companies as their agents it applies

maybe read some case law on this
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
2,740
Points
163
Try to get that Democrat boot polish off your tongue, buffoon.
Not a very intelligent sounding response.

Maybe you should stick to your echo chambers as opposed to a discussion forum. Not everyone is cut out for this.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,501
Reaction score
59,360
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Not a very intelligent sounding response.

Maybe you should stick to your echo chambers as opposed to a discussion forum. Not everyone is cut out for this.



Beat it, Nazi.
 

SeaMajor7

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
929
Reaction score
1,094
Points
883
Location
Long Island, NY
You can be thrown off this board for breaking the rules. They will delete posts containing threats, racist white supremacy, scams or dangerous medical quackery just like any place else.
Posting that Huner's lap-top from HELL isn't Russian propaganda, that the whole Russia Russia Russia witch hunt against Trump was all sourced from Hillary's bought and paid for dirty dossier will get you banned on those other "platforms".
Any accusations of "threats, racist white supremacy, scams or dangerous medical quackery" are just OPINIONS from the demented LEFT!
You people somehow deem yourselves the arbiters of "truth"; that's NOT how this Country was founded, hence the First Amendment.
These "platforms" are the new "Town Square", and all voices should be heard!
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,137
Reaction score
9,857
Points
2,030
It's obviously unconstitutional for the government to tell media companies who to censor. But it's not unconstitutional for media companies to censor on their own.

The problem is that most of the idiots in this thread don't understand that distinction.

On the right, Trumpsters are just mad because Twitter was mean to them and they want revenge. In their ignorant zeal, they're ready throw out free speech in the name of winning the culture war.

And the left is so terrified of the cultural backlash (cultural backlash they created and continue to provoke), that they're willing to throw away free speech to squash it. Again, all in the name of winning the culture war.

We need to realize that using government to force our cultural preferences on others is just as dangerous, and just as wrong, as using government to force our religious preferences on others. It's an abuse of the power of the state and should not be tolerated.
 
Last edited:

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
2,740
Points
163
not sure what that has to do with my point
Trump’s lawsuit made the same claim you are and it failed miserably.

I thought a talented lawyer like yourself would have known this.
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
when the demafasict use private companies as their agents it applies

maybe read some case law on this
Maybe you should. Any ruling that could force social media to reverse their moderation decisions would set a precedent that businesses do not have the right to refuse to do business with people that are hurting their business.
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
49,718
Reaction score
21,887
Points
2,300
It's obviously unconstitutional for the government to tell media companies who to censor. But it's not unconstitutional for media companies to censor on their own.

The problem is that most of the idiots in this thread don't understand that distinction.

On the right, Trumpsters are just mad because Twitter was mean to them and they want revenge. In their ignorant zeal, they're ready throw out free speech in the name of winning the culture war.

And the left is so terrified of the cultural backlash (cultural backlash they created and continue to provoke), that they're willing to throw away free speech to squash it. Again, all in the name of winning the culture war.

We need to realize that using government to force our cultural preferences on others is just as dangerous, and just as wrong, as using government to force our religious preferences on others. It's an abuse of the power of the state and should not be tolerated.
The problem is that the government is not FORCING anything
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

New Topics

Forum List

Top