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?

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,137
Reaction score
9,857
Points
2,030
The problem is that the government is not FORCING anything
Maybe. But there's a lot of implied threat floating around. Pretty much every time Congress, or the President, start musing about the need for regulation, it's an implied threat: make us happy or face our "regulatory" wrath.

"That's a nice website you got there. It'd be a shame if it got regulated out of existence. Are you SURE you want to run that story on Hunter Biden? It's just hackers from Russia. Be a good American and bury it.".
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
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!
The town square argument means that you can go stand in public and attempt to influence those within the sound of your voice. Even then you are held responsible if your speech does some sort of malicious or negligent harm.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
Trump’s lawsuit made the same claim you are and it failed miserably.

I thought a talented lawyer like yourself would have known this.
my claim is the law. Trumps lawsuit failed because it failed to prove it

if someone acts as a agent of the govt, they are the govt

what has happened since trump’s suit is we have seen more evidence to prove what trump claimed

y’all are fascist
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
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.
haha no

but the govt doesn’t have the ability to threaten businesses if they don’t censor what they want
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
haha no

but the govt doesn’t have the ability to threaten businesses if they don’t censor what they want
The government has expansive powers to protect public health and safety as well as free speech itself. They can absolutely bring pressure against any business that is hurting our citizens or posing some sort of threat against the public good.
 

Marener

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
6,103
Reaction score
2,740
Points
163
my claim is the law. Trumps lawsuit failed because it failed to prove it

if someone acts as a agent of the govt, they are the govt

what has happened since trump’s suit is we have seen more evidence to prove what trump claimed

y’all are fascist
The conservative SCOTUS has been especial skeptical of state actor doctrine, so the uphill battle to prove social media got more uphill after the Halleck decision.

But I have no doubt the conservative judges will have no problem applying a double standard if it serves the conservative interest to do so, because they’ve decided to trash their legitimacy.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
The government has expansive powers to protect public health and safety as well as free speech itself. They can absolutely bring pressure against any business that is hurting our citizens or posing some sort of threat against the public good.
ah you’re a fascist
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
The conservative SCOTUS has been especial skeptical of state actor doctrine, so the uphill battle to prove social media got more uphill after the Halleck decision.

But I have no doubt the conservative judges will have no problem applying a double standard if it serves the conservative interest to do so, because they’ve decided to trash their legitimacy.
can you show me where the current court has bee. “especial skeptical of the state actor doctrine” ?
 

occupied

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
33,521
Reaction score
13,734
Points
1,590
ah you’re a fascist
Nope, I'm just not in denial over what the government can and cannot do. It's right to debate if the government should get involved with internet drama and such but there are no 1st amendment arguments that apply to social media.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
Nope, I'm just not in denial over what the government can and cannot do. It's right to debate if the government should get involved with internet drama and such but there are no 1st amendment arguments that apply to social media.
the govt can’t violate the constitution…the constitution was literally set up to limit the govt

therefore the govt can’t use agents to violate it
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
Have you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?
It applies to the government. That means telling social media companies who to ban is illegal, moron.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
The town square argument means that you can go stand in public and attempt to influence those within the sound of your voice. Even then you are held responsible if your speech does some sort of malicious or negligent harm.
The government can't participate in telling private companies who to let speak, NAZI.

No one is surprised that all you prog fascists would defend this.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
The government has expansive powers to protect public health and safety as well as free speech itself. They can absolutely bring pressure against any business that is hurting our citizens or posing some sort of threat against the public good.
Wrong. Public health is not a legitimate excuse for violating the Bill of Rights, you fucking NAZI.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
29,248
Reaction score
17,457
Points
1,288
It applies to the government. That means telling social media companies who to ban is illegal, moron.
the poster has already made clear he’s a fascist and has no problem with the govt making private business do what they want so long as it’s for the benefit of the party
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
The conservative SCOTUS has been especial skeptical of state actor doctrine, so the uphill battle to prove social media got more uphill after the Halleck decision.

But I have no doubt the conservative judges will have no problem applying a double standard if it serves the conservative interest to do so, because they’ve decided to trash their legitimacy.
What the hell is the "state actor doctrine?" True, conservatives judges probably will enforce the first Amendment.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
Nope, I'm just not in denial over what the government can and cannot do.
You obviously are.

It's right to debate if the government should get involved with internet drama and such but there are no 1st amendment arguments that apply to social media.
Spoken like a true NAZI moron.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
9,527
Points
490
This is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.
Why don't you list who the government has banned from social media?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
159,494
Reaction score
41,661
Points
2,180
I already did.

Don’t tell me a talented litigator like yourself is unfamiliar with such a relevant SCOTUS decision?
The Halleck decision is irrelevant to this issue, moron.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

New Topics

Forum List

Top