Discrimination is not allowed in bars.
You can be removed or refused service under certain conditions.
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.
Discrimination is not allowed in bars.
Can you post a link with what you’re talking about? I haven’t heard about the feds forcing social media companies to ban usersThis is a direct violation of the first ammendment.
It is Unconstitutional for the federal government to tell any private companies who to censor.
No it doesn't, NAZI.The federal government has every right to impose conditions for tax exempt organizations.
What you really mean is that churches generally don't support Democrats, so you want to destroy them.The Constitution says nothing about churches and taxes. Churches are at the forefront of the attack on our country. They think churchges should be running this country.
Wrong.
Only if they don't control content, moron. If they do control content, then they aren't entitled to protection from being sued. You have it precisely backwards.
Because they can’t possibly verify every post to determine whether it is defamatory.Your theory a lie, douchebag. Why would they need protection from lawsuits if they can control content?
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln
Anne Applebaum, who observes about Soviet-era suppression: “Actual censors were not always needed. Instead, a form of pervasive peer pressure convinced writers, journalists and everyone else to toe the party line; if they did not, they knew they risked being ejected from their jobs and shunned by their friends.”
JONATHAN TURLEY: I want to emphasize that a lot of people on the left that have said if it's not prohibited on the First Amendment, it's not a free speech issue. That's not true. The First Amendment is not the exclusive domain of free speech. What they are doing is shutting down free speech. The left has come on to a winning strategy. …. they've discovered that if they use corporations to control speech, it falls outside the First Amendment. But it's not true that what they're doing is not a free speech attack. It is. They're trying to stop people from speaking on these platforms…. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-rogan-spotify-jonathan-turley-left-silence-free-speech
"5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again
The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.
bans social media companies from censoring users’ viewpoints is constitutionally allowed, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday, in a blow to Facebook, Twitter and Google.
The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies."
5th Circuit upholds Texas law forbidding social media ‘censorship’ — again
The ruling is a win for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in their efforts to combat what they call censorship of conservative viewpoints by social media companies.www.politico.com
And we thought we defeated that sort of view in WWII.
Then they took over the schools and the media, with this result.
No it doesn't, NAZI.
What you really mean is that churches generally don't support Democrats, so you want to destroy them.
You can be removed or refused service under certain conditions.
You are the Nazi who is attacking this country. You are the ones who we defeated in WWII. You are the ones trying to take over schools and the media.
Not if they want 230 protection, numskull.You are wrong. They have a right to refuse service under certain circumstances.
Which is why the government gives protection only if they Don't control content. If they can review the content, then there's no reason to give them an exemption.Because they can’t possibly verify every post to determine whether it is defamatory.
Not if they want to be exempt from lawsuits.You are wrong. They have a right to refuse service under certain circumstances.
You're changing the subject from censorship to the exempt status of churches.Yes it does NAZI. Tell me what section of the Constitution makes tax exempt status a right.
The reason to give them an exemption is that the government actually wanted to promote companies to review content. Companies didn’t want to review content if it meant they had to take legal liability for anything they missed. So government gave them the ability to review content without having to take on liability.Which is why the government gives protection only if they Don't control content. If they can review the content, then there's no reason to give them an exemption.
sigh - more equivocation. Whatever. As I said, I'm all for repealing it. Those laws are only passed so asswipes like you can lord it over companies and threaten to fuck up their shit if they don't do as they're told.230 says they operate as a PORTAL. The second they begin editing they lose 230 status.
DURRRRRR
Have you ever read the first amendment? Who does it apply to?
A government agency providing who the private social media companies should censor violates the freedom of speech of the the person using social media. If it was the company alone, no problem as they are not the government.
No it doesn't, NAZI.
What you really mean is that churches generally don't support Democrats, so you want to destroy them.
Utter horse squeeze.The reason to give them an exemption is that the government actually wanted to promote companies to review content. Companies didn’t want to review content if it meant they had to take legal liability for anything they missed. So government gave them the ability to review content without having to take on liability.
What you keep missing is that government doesn’t need to give protection to social media platforms that don’t moderate. That already existed.