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

[Marener]

Bull shit... Section 230 is enforced by the FCC which is under the direction of the executive. He can choose to not enforce it just as he does our immigration laws. Quit being deceptive.

That’s idiotic. The FCC doesn’t “enforce” anything in section 230. There’s really nothing to enforce other than judges dismissing lawsuits against social media companies because they’re not liable for user content.

 

[Marener]

i’ve already provided the case law

Marsh v Alabama? That has no relation to this.

 

[dblack]

I still haven't seen proof that the government actually coerced anyone into banning people

But that IS the question.

What about the example I raised earlier?

If the police kept a list of "troublemakers", and "asked" the local bars to refuse service to them. Would you have a problem with that?

 

[Blues Man]

But that IS the question.

What about the example I raised earlier?

When I see actual proof I'll agree with you. But the NY Post article isn't actual proof is it?

 

[dblack]

When I see actual proof I'll agree with you. But the NY Post article isn't actual proof is it?

Are you really just going to dummy up and refuse to answer?

If the police kept a list of "troublemakers", and "asked" the local bars to refuse service to them. Would you have a problem with that?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I’d love to hear more about what was established.

You don't have to "hear" about it. The Biden administration openly admitted they were using noncompliance with section 230 to force them to do their bidding. Donations in kind for Biden and donations is kind to keep their section 230 protections alive even though they were violating that law and censoring their political enemies. ITs already being done blatantly and out in the open.

 

[Blues Man]

Are you really just going to dummy up and refuse to answer?

If the local police kept a list of "troublemakers", and "asked" the local bars to refuse service to them. Would you have a problem with that?

Ifs and Buts are no different than candy and nuts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When I see actual proof I'll agree with you. But the NY Post article isn't actual proof is it?

SO if you disagree with a reporting organization its not proof? do you sayt the same thing when the NY Slimes, CNN, and MSNBC do it?

 

[struth]

Marsh v Alabama? That has no relation to this.

haha yeah

geez you are either an idiot, stupid or a fascist

the case is actually directly on point

 

[dblack]

Ifs and Buts are no different than candy and nuts.

Wow. The ideological cowardice and hypocrisy are just off the charts here. Keep that head firmly up your ass. Otherwise you might see something you don't like.

 

[Blues Man]

SO if you disagree with a reporting organization its not proof? do you sayt the same thing when the NY Slimes, CNN, and MSNBC do it?

Where were the interviews with the people who were coerced?

remember the 5 Ws of reporting?

And I am just as critical of ALL corporate news and you of courser are just making stupid assumptions

 

[Blues Man]

Wow. The ideological cowardice and hypocrisy are just off the charts here. Keep that head firmly up your ass. Otherwise you might see something you don't like.

Hypotheticals are a waste of time.

If aliens landed would you look forward to the anal probes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where were the interviews with the people who were coerced?

remember the 5 Ws of reporting?

And I am just as critical of ALL corporate news and you of courser are just making stupid assumptions

The VISIBLE EMPERICAL EVIDNECE is right in front of your face, and you CHOOSE to ignore it. That is sadly the state of the left's hypocrisy and bigotry.

 

[dblack]

Hypotheticals are a waste of time.

Especially when they expose your hypocrisy. Those should avoided at all costs.

 

[struth]

That’s idiotic. The FCC doesn’t “enforce” anything in section 230. There’s really nothing to enforce other than judges dismissing lawsuits against social media companies because they’re not liable for user content.

actually the FCC enforces the Federal Communications Act of 1934.

judges work in courts and dismiss lawsuits

 

[ColonelAngus]

It has been posted here numerous times.

Psaki said THE WHITE HOUSE MEETS WITH SOCIAL MEDIA TO TELL THEM WHO TO CENSOR.

 

[Marener]

You don't have to "hear" about it. The Biden administration openly admitted they were using noncompliance with section 230 to force them to do their bidding. Donations in kind for Biden and donations is kind to keep their section 230 protections alive even though they were violating that law and censoring their political enemies. ITs already being done blatantly and out in the open.

“Noncompliance with section 230”? That doesn’t make any sense. Section 230 doesn’t require compliance. It’s just an exemption from liability.

Biden can’t change anything about section 230. It’s law. He can’t take it away or alter it in any way.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That’s idiotic. The FCC doesn’t “enforce” anything in section 230. There’s really nothing to enforce other than judges dismissing lawsuits against social media companies because they’re not liable for user content.

Epic Failure.... Tell me again who controls licensing of these entities? These people are acting as publishers in the electronic-worldwide form. You want to try again? The FCC and/or the courts could shut them off in about a minuet for violations of section 230. The problem is the DOJ would have to request criminal or civil indictment. That will not happen if they are doing Pedo-Joe's bidding...

 

[Blues Man]

Especially when they expose your hypocrisy. Those should avoided at all costs.

What hypocrisy?

A private business cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.

So unless and until you have actual proof of government coercion there is nothing here.

 

[Marener]

haha yeah

geez you are either an idiot, stupid or a fascist

the case is actually directly on point

Explain how that case is directly on point.