Marener
Diamond Member
- Jul 26, 2022
- 32,229
- 14,773
- 1,473
How the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.The Halleck decision is irrelevant to this issue, moron.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.The Halleck decision is irrelevant to this issue, moron.
Alex Jones, for one.Why don't you list who the government has banned from social media?
ROFL! I have the capacity to commit logic. That's how I know. What concept do you imagine I don't understand?How the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.
Marsh v Alabama is the case to reviewHow the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.
So where in the constitution does the state get to compel speech?ROFL! I have the capacity to commit logic. That's how I know. What concept do you imagine I don't understand?
Why do you still think you have an implied right to free speech on social media? Even if you ever did you sign it away when you join where you agree to play by the rules and signify that you understand all moderation decisions are final. You are not in the public square, you are even now in a place of business.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
The government banned him?Alex Jones, for one.
There is a long list of people who have been banned from various social media platforms. Only prog douchebags would deny it.
Where am I advocating for compelled speech?So where in the constitution does the state get to compel speech?
you don’t but the issue is when the state tells the social media outlet what to suppressWhy do you still think you have an implied right to free speech on social media? Even if you ever did you sign it away when you join where you agree to play by the rules and signify that you understand all moderation decisions are final. You are not in the public square, you are even now in a place of business.
Nice try but that’s not going to work. Marsh v Alabama falls into a specific exemption for state actor when it excuses “powers traditionally exclusively reserved for the state”. There are very few exceptions in this category.Marsh v Alabama is the case to review
The government told social media to ban Alex Jones, NAZI.The government banned him?
Not if the government is telling them to do it, moron. And also not if the government is protecting them from lawsuits.A private citizen or business entity ban anyone they want without violating anyone's First Amendment rights
The state is doing not now. The state tells social media companies who to ban.Nice try but that’s not going to work. Marsh v Alabama falls into a specific exemption for state actor when it excuses “powers traditionally exclusively reserved for the state”. There are very few exceptions in this category.
A state traditionally manages a sidewalk. A state does not traditionally manage a social media website.
You can stop anytime or we can keep embarrassing you.
How did government do that? Isn't it possible that he's been banned because people think he's a reprehensible ghoul? I'm not saying you're wrong, and would love to see any evidence to the contrary, but I haven't really heard about any threats or mandates from government telling websites to ban Jones.Alex Jones, for one.
yes and the xiden admin is doing that by telling them what to censorNice try but that’s not going to work. Marsh v Alabama falls into a specific exemption for state actor when it excuses “powers traditionally exclusively reserved for the state”. There are very few exceptions in this category.
A state traditionally manages a sidewalk. A state does not traditionally manage a social media website.
You can stop anytime or we can keep embarrassing you.
Forcing social media companies to publish speech is compelled speech.Where am I advocating for compelled speech?
You're ignoring the point of this thread.Why do you still think you have an implied right to free speech on social media? Even if you ever did you sign it away when you join where you agree to play by the rules and signify that you understand all moderation decisions are final. You are not in the public square, you are even now in a place of business.
LINKThe government told social media to ban Alex Jones, NAZI.
You mean like when the government told social media to ban Alex Jones?Forcing social media companies to publish speech is compelled speech.
That’s an entirely different component of stat action doctrine which has nothing to do with Marsh v Alabama.yes and the xiden admin is doing that by telling them what to censor