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

[struth]

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.

haha of course it is…when xiden admin meets with them and tells them what to publish

The government has free speech too. They can tell anyone to do anything or face whatever consequences they can legally bring to bear. You really don't have to like it but that's how it is. The government can absolutely pressure social media companies to clean up their acts in the name of the public good.

no…the govt can’t tell a person or company what to say

that’s what we have the first amendment

 

[Marener]

They cooperated, of course, because they are prog douchebags. However, the government violated the First Amendment by colluding with them.

If there was no force, the premise and title of your article is a lie.

 

[bripat9643]

If there was no force, the premise and title of your article is a lie.

It used tax money which is obtained by force, asshole.

 

[Marener]

haha of course it is…when xiden admin meets with them and tells them what to publish

Still looking for how they compelled them. Without evidence of that, you have nothing.

Just like how Trump had nothing when he argued this aspect before a judge in his lawsuit with Twitter.

It’s embarrassing you don’t understand your own profession. You’re a terrible lawyer.

 

[bripat9643]

If there was no force, the premise and title of your article is a lie.

Taxes aren't obtained through force?

 

[dblack]

Regulating corporations is entirely coercive because they never willingly walk away from a profit no matter how dirty or exploitative.

They last bit is just a marxist slur, but yeah - regulation is coercive. An application of state force. So is threatening legislation unless companies do as they're told.

 

[struth]

That never happened, douchebag. You're the one who wants force private business to do what homosexuals want. Not me.

huh?

 

[struth]

Still looking for how they compelled them. Without evidence of that, you have nothing.

Just like how Trump had nothing when he argued this aspect before a judge in his lawsuit with Twitter.

It’s embarrassing you don’t understand your own profession. You’re a terrible lawyer.

um the meetings with them, when they told them what to allow being published

moreover trump still has two other open cases against twitter

 

[bripat9643]

They last bit is just a marxist slur, but yeah - regulation is coercive. An application of state force. So is threatening legislation unless companies do as they're told.

The fact that they spent time doing it on the taxpayer's dime is coercive.

 

[bripat9643]

huh?

Sorry, I misconstrued your post.

 

[Marener]

Taxes aren't obtained through force?

This argument makes no sense.

Social media companies aren’t forced to do anything by the government.

Don’t be such a moron.

 

[Marener]

um the meetings with them, when they told them what to allow being published

And what would happen if social media companies didn’t do so?

 

[jknowgood]

Of course it is. Do you have any proof that this happened? Have any companies complained that they were bullied by the government?

The owner of Facebook was told to censor the laptop story.

 

[dblack]

The fact that they spent time doing it on the taxpayer's dime is coercive.

Yep, it's no different than proposing to revoke 230 unless Twitter unbans Trump.

This is why we're so screwed. Both sides are pushing us toward fascism. It's just a question of who gets there first.

 

[bripat9643]

This argument makes no sense.

Social media companies aren’t forced to do anything by the government.

Don’t be such a moron.

The government is colluding with social media on the taxpayer's dime to censor Americans. Taxes are obtained by force.

What part are you too fucking stupid to understand?

 

[struth]

And what would happen if social media companies didn’t do so?

that’s a good question.

but nonetheless not relevant

 

[struth]

This argument makes no sense.

Social media companies aren’t forced to do anything by the government.

Don’t be such a moron.

of course they are forced to pay taxes

geez try not paying taxes

 

[bripat9643]

And what would happen if social media companies didn’t do so?

That doesn't matter. Simply discussing the matter with them is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

He found a way around the ban. That doesn't mean the Facebook didn't ban him, you fucking moron.

OOOHHHH a whole hour

 

[bripat9643]

OOOHHHH a whole hour

He still has to work around the ban rather than just using Facebook like everyone else.

It's always hilarious whenever progs get into this head in the sand mode.