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.
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.The problem is that the government is not FORCING anything
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.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!
my claim is the law. Trumps lawsuit failed because it failed to prove itTrump’s lawsuit made the same claim you are and it failed miserably.
I thought a talented lawyer like yourself would have known this.
haha noMaybe 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.
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.haha no
but the govt doesn’t have the ability to threaten businesses if they don’t censor what they want
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.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
ah you’re a fascistThe 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.
can you show me where the current court has bee. “especial skeptical of the state actor doctrine” ?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.
I already did.can you show me where the current court has bee. “especial skeptical of the state actor doctrine” ?
Don’t tell me a talented litigator like yourself is unfamiliar with such a relevant SCOTUS decision?after the Halleck decision.
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.ah you’re a fascist
the govt can’t violate the constitution…the constitution was literally set up to limit the govtNope, 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.
It applies to the government. That means telling social media companies who to ban is illegal, moron.Have you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?
It's spending money participating in it, you sleazy NAZI douchebag.The problem is that the government is not FORCING anything
The government can't participate in telling private companies who to let speak, NAZI.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.
Wrong. Public health is not a legitimate excuse for violating the Bill of Rights, you fucking NAZI.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.
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 partyIt applies to the government. That means telling social media companies who to ban is illegal, moron.
What the hell is the "state actor doctrine?" True, conservatives judges probably will enforce the first Amendment.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.
You obviously are.Nope, I'm just not in denial over what the government can and cannot do.
Spoken like a true NAZI moron.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.
Why don't you list who the government has banned from social media?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 Halleck decision is irrelevant to this issue, moron.I already did.
Don’t tell me a talented litigator like yourself is unfamiliar with such a relevant SCOTUS decision?
