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

[Marener]

The Halleck decision is irrelevant to this issue, moron.

How the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't you list who the government has banned from social media?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

How the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.

ROFL! I have the capacity to commit logic. That's how I know. What concept do you imagine I don't understand?

 

[struth]

How the hell would you know? You don’t even understand the legal concepts involved here.

Marsh v Alabama is the case to review

 

[Marener]

ROFL! I have the capacity to commit logic. That's how I know. What concept do you imagine I don't understand?

So where in the constitution does the state get to compel speech?

 

[occupied]

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

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.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

The government banned him?

A private citizen or business entity ban anyone they want without violating anyone's First Amendment rights

 

[bripat9643]

So where in the constitution does the state get to compel speech?

Where am I advocating for compelled speech?

You're the one who advocates for it by supporting laws that force bakers to bakes cakes that endorse homosexuality

 

[struth]

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.

you don’t but the issue is when the state tells the social media outlet what to suppress

 

[Marener]

Marsh v Alabama is the case to review

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.

 

[bripat9643]

The government banned him?

The government told social media to ban Alex Jones, NAZI.

A private citizen or business entity ban anyone they want without violating anyone's First Amendment rights

Not if the government is telling them to do it, moron. And also not if the government is protecting them from lawsuits.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The state is doing not now. The state tells social media companies who to ban.

 

[dblack]

Alex Jones, for one.

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.

The Hunter Biden thing, with FB, crosses a line in my opinion. But it's a line most aren't recognizing. It's wrong for government to tell websites who to ban. But it's fine for society (including owners of social media sites) to say - "We're not playing. We're not going to facilitate deplorable goons."

 

[struth]

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.

yes and the xiden admin is doing that by telling them what to censor

 

[Marener]

Where am I advocating for compelled speech?

Forcing social media companies to publish speech is compelled speech.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're ignoring the point of this thread.

 

[Blues Man]

The government told social media to ban Alex Jones, NAZI.

LINK

 

[bripat9643]

Forcing social media companies to publish speech is compelled speech.

You mean like when the government told social media to ban Alex Jones?

Quit pretending you're too stupid to understand the issue here.

 

[bripat9643]

LINK

White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’

 

[Marener]

yes and the xiden admin is doing that by telling them what to censor

That’s an entirely different component of stat action doctrine which has nothing to do with Marsh v Alabama.

You need to show social media companies are being compelled by the government. That isn’t happening.