Will ANYONE in the government be held accountable for violations of the first amendment via Twitter?

[Redfish]

/——-/ Are you playing stupid just to get attention? It’s restricting the government, not private citizens or corporations. GEEEEZE.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech" Do laws only apply to the government?

your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance, dipshit.

 

[Redfish]

/——-/ Are you playing stupid just to get attention? It’s restricting the government, not private citizens or corporations. GEEEEZE.

if congress made a law saying that black people cannot speak about slavery that would be a violation of the first amendment, for example. I don't think all black people work for the government.

 

[Skylar]

He hasn't done either, douchebag.

Remember, and this point is important: You have no idea what is going on, nor the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 740657

Twitter Files Part 6 reveals FBI's ties to tech giant: 'As if it were a subsidiary'

Substack writer Matt Taibbi published the sixth installment of Elon Musk's "Twitter Files," highlighting the tech giant's cozy relationship with the FBI.

www.foxnews.com

@fromma wasn't banned. In fact, it's still active.

 

[Faun]

That's a big fat lie, you dumb asshole. Only NAZIs swallow that argument.

Only fucking morons believe what you're posting.

 

[Faun]

The FBI was identified interfering in our elections, you dumb fuck.

Like they did in 2016? Funny how you were ok with it then.

 

[OKTexas]

so if you work for a large corporation you give up your first amendment rights when you are at work? Don't think that's what the founders had in mind when they wrote it.

Well you can say any damn thing you want at work, doesn't mean your employer can't fire you for it.

.

 

[Skylar]

Well you can say any damn thing you want at work, doesn't mean your employer can't fire you for it.

.

Yeah, the first amendment doesn't protect one from consequence for speech.

 

[Redfish]

Well you can say any damn thing you want at work, doesn't mean your employer can't fire you for it.

.

true, but you can say it, that's the point. private companies cannot override the first amendment.

 

[Skylar]

true, but you can say it, that's the point. private companies cannot override the first amendment.

You may want to check the first word of the first amendment on the folly of trying to apply it to private companies.

 

[bripat9643]

You may want to check the first word of the first amendment on the folly of trying to apply it to private companies.

The FBI isn't a private company, moron.

 

[Skylar]

The FBI isn't a private company, moron.

The private company we're discussing is Twitter, and their actions.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, the first amendment doesn't protect one from consequence for speech.

Getting censored by the FBI is not a consequence of speech.

 

[bripat9643]

The private company we're discussing is Twitter, and their actions.

As directed by the FBI, dirtbag.

 

[Skylar]

As directed by the FBI, dirtbag.

These were requests by the FBI. If they were statutorily required to do so, you might have a point. But there's no law requiring Twitter to pull any post.

 

[bripat9643]

These were requests by the FBI. If they were statutorily required to do so, you might have a point. But there's no law requiring Twitter to pull any post.

what a pile of horseshit. There is no statute that require' s the FBI to violate the First Amendment. Only a fucking NAZI would try to justify this crap.

 

[Skylar]

what a pile of horseshit. There is no statute that require' s the FBI to violate the First Amendment. Only a fucking NAZI would try to justify this crap.

What law required Twitter to pull the posts? Cite it.

If there is no such law, then there is no 1st amendment violation. As demonstrated by the first four words of the 1st amendment. The FBI made *requests*. Twitter CHOSE to grant them.

 

[bripat9643]

What law required Twitter to pull the posts? Cite it.

If there is no such law, then there is no 1st amendment violation. As demonstrated by the first four words of the 1st amendment. The FBI made *requests*. Twitter CHOSE to grant them.

The First Amendment bars the FBI from administering censorship, period. The FBI is not allowed to make any such request, NAZI. IF the FBI "requested" me to murder someone, would that make it OK?

 

[Skylar]

The First Amendment bars the FBI from administering censorship, period. T

So no law required Twitter to pull the posts.

So much for your 1st amendment claims. As Congress created no law.

he FBI is not allowed to make any such request, NAZI. IF the FBI "requested" me to murder someone, would that make it OK?

The FBI is not allowed to make any such request.....says who? Not the first amendment. Not the judiciary.

You're citing yourself as the supreme legal authority again. And you're nobody.

 

[Faun]

Getting censored by the FBI is not a consequence of speech.

Fucking moron, the FBI never made Twitter ban or block anyone or any content.