White House colludes with Facebook 1st Amendment violations

[American]

How many amendments? As many as are needed.

Every American citizen does NOT have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote. Most citizens have the privilege of voting PROVIDED that they have jumped through the administrative hoops that have been established by ordinary legislation. And, ordinary legislation can be changed without any constitutional change and it would be perfectly "constitutional" (but rather stupid) to deny anyone with blue eyes the ability to vote.

In Canada EVERY citizen DOES have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote. True, they do have to establish their identity before they can get a ballot that will be deposited in the regular ballot box and counted along with the other regularly cast ballots but that does not detract from the fact that they do have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote. (For examples of the incredibly restrictive criteria for proving your identity in order to vote in Canada see HERE.)

Now where you got that I'd "push to scrap an entire constitution for that" I simply have no idea. Face it, they didn't have to "scrap an entire constitution" in order for those who were formerly slaves to vote and they didn't have to "scrap an entire constitution" in order for those who were female to vote, and they didn't have to "scrap an entire constitution" for those over the age of 18 to vote.

You need a goddamn ID to get a gun!!!! WTF do you want?? Jumping through hoops IS A BULLSHIT ARGUMENT THAT CARRIES NO WATER. Try again, this time without your teleprompter.

 

[D_NATURED]

The constitution limits the actions of congress, not Facebook. Next....

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The constitution limits the actions of congress, not Facebook. Next....

The First Amendment is a single sentence that begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law..."

Here it is in It's entirety...
"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."

There's a better argument to be made that trying to limit Facebook's right to ban users who defy It's TOS is a violation of the freedom of the press than that the First Amendment says everyone has a right to be heard on Facebook.

Not true. The Constitution can be applied to the government in general, not just Congress. Such as the lawsuit when Trump blocked Twitter users on his offical account in which the 1st Amendment was applied and the one in which Trump lost. Trump is a part of the Executive branch, not Congress.

 

[US&THEM]

Not true. The Constitution can be applied to the government in general, not just Congress. Such as the lawsuit when Trump blocked Twitter users on his offical account in which the 1st Amendment was applied and the one in which Trump lost. Trump is a part of the Executive branch, not Congress.

You do not see the glaring difference between the the President blocking the very people he works for?

 

[D_NATURED]

Not true. The Constitution can be applied to the government in general, not just Congress. Such as the lawsuit when Trump blocked Twitter users on his offical account in which the 1st Amendment was applied and the one in which Trump lost. Trump is a part of the Executive branch, not Congress.

Ok, Facebook isn't "the government" either. Why must we even have this conversation?

As a private company, Facebook does not have to allow ANYONE, much less butthurt traitors, to use their platform to spread lies. If they do that, they open themselves up for liability when repubs knowingly say wrong shit that gets people killed.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You do not see the glaring difference between the the President blocking the very people he works for?

Having a diffrence, whether there is one or not, isn't the point. To say the first Amendment doesn't apply to anyone outside Congress, isnt correct.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Ok, Facebook isn't "the government" either. Why must we even have this conversation?

As a private company, Facebook does not have to allow ANYONE, much less butthurt traitors, to use their platform to spread lies. If they do that, they open themselves up for liability when repubs knowingly say wrong shit that gets people killed.

Which again, goes to state actors in which the Supreme Court defined in several court cases. A private company can be considered as a state actor in many circumstances.

 

[Lisa]

Having a diffrence, whether there is one or not, isn't the point. To say the first Amendment doesn't apply to anyone outside Congress, isnt correct.

The first amendment only applies to the actions of the government at any level, which is known legally as a state actor. Those same speech protections do not apply to the actions of private parties that criticize or limit your speech on their property.

How many times does this need to be explained to you before you understand it? This is a simple concept and should have been understood before high school graduation.

Which again, goes to state actors in which the Supreme Court defined in several court cases. A private company can be considered as a state actor in many circumstances.

How is Facebook or Twitter a state actor?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The first amendment only applies to the actions of the government at any level, which is known legally as a state actor. Those same speech protections do not apply to the actions of private parties that criticize or limit your speech on their property.

How many times does this need to be explained to you before you understand it? This is a simple concept and should have been understood before high school graduation.




How is Facebook or Twitter a state actor?

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP v. HALLECK

"When the government acts jointly with the private entity."

There could be others that apply as well.

 

[US&THEM]

Having a diffrence, whether there is one or not, isn't the point. To say the first Amendment doesn't apply to anyone outside Congress, isnt correct.

Wow you have not a clue.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Wow you have not a clue.

The fact that Trump lost his court case based on the 1st Amendment, should clue you in that it applies outside of Congress.

 

[US&THEM]

The fact that Trump lost his court case based on the 1st Amendment, should clue you in that it applies outside of Congress.

Apples to oranges and I do not expect you to understand the law.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Apples to oranges

How so?

 

[US&THEM]

How so?

I have no idea what you are rambling on about the congress etc. You make zero sense.

 

[Lisa]

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP v. HALLECK

"When the government acts jointly with the private entity."

There could be others that apply as well.

How is that relevant to Twitter enforcing their TOS?

That TV network could also enforce their decency and prohibit nazis and others from using that platform to spread hate or organize criminal activity.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

How is that relevant to Twitter enforcing their TOS?

That TV network could also enforce their decency and prohibit nazis and others from using that platform to spread hate or organize criminal activity.

By themselves, a private company can do so. The government getting involved with removing speech now becomes an issue.

 

[Lisa]

By themselves, a private company can do so. The government getting involved with removing speech now becomes an issue.

Do you have any objective evidence that the federal government forced Twitter or Facebook to do anything?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Do you have any objective evidence that the federal government forced Twitter or Facebook to do anything?

First off forcing them isnt nessicarilly needed if Facebook or others are concidered state actors. The White House simply flagging Facebook posts that they freely admitted could still be considered a violation.

Now, we are seeing some information where the government is thinking of making them responsible for what others post or possibly even punishment.

White House says social media networks should be held accountable for spreading misinformation

The comments are the latest from the Biden administration in a tiff over whether or not social media companies are harming users with Covid-19 misinformation.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Grand Mal]

Not true. The Constitution can be applied to the government in general, not just Congress. Such as the lawsuit when Trump blocked Twitter users on his offical account in which the 1st Amendment was applied and the one in which Trump lost. Trump is a part of the Executive branch, not Congress.

Trump isn't part of anything. And the point is the 1st only applies to the government, not a private business. The newspaper isn't obliged by the 1st Amendment to print your letter to the editor and Facebook isn't obliged to host your messages.
In fact, the 1st cites freedom of the press, and that includes the freedom to chose to publish or not publish as they see fit. Trying to oblige Facebook to carry anything that anyone wants to post there is a violation of Facebook's 1st Amendment rights

 

[Lisa]

First off forcing them isnt nessicarilly needed if Facebook or others are concidered state actors. The White House simply flagging Facebook posts that they freely admitted could still be considered a violation.

Now, we are seeing some information where the government is thinking of making them responsible for what others post or possibly even punishment.

White House says social media networks should be held accountable for spreading misinformation

The comments are the latest from the Biden administration in a tiff over whether or not social media companies are harming users with Covid-19 misinformation.

www.cnbc.com

Do you have any evidence that Facebook or Twitter are state actors? We all understand that you support Trump, but just because you support what he said doesn't mean that his bans are violations of free speech.

 

[noonereal]

Like they torched Portland? You got a constitution that's better?

It would be pretty easy to put together something better than we have.

It's 2021, the constitution was good for 1787.

 

[Roger Duke]

So it IS your position that "My body, my choice" applies ONLY if the choice is one that you approve of, but does NOT apply if you don't want it to.

I like the my "My body my choice" slogan. And I like the fact that human beings know that if another human is not in a position to make a choice, caring compassionate people should do it for them.
If a drunk person has passed out, it is fine to remove them from the tracks so the train doesn't hit them...because we all know that's what they would want if they could decide.
If a mentally challenged person does not have the ability think rationally and/or the ability communicate, it is fine for us to make the choice for them and give them proper care.....because we all know that's what they would do if they could decide.
If a fetus does not have the ability to communicate with us and can't explain that it chooses to not get chopped into pieces, it is fine for us to stop the murder..... because we know that's what the tiny babies would want if they could decide.
Compassionate people give a voice to the helpless. Barbarians have no love or respect for the vulnerable.

 

[D_NATURED]

Which again, goes to state actors in which the Supreme Court defined in several court cases. A private company can be considered as a state actor in many circumstances.

So, you think, first of all, that Facebook is a "state actor" (ie, fascist delusion) and, secondly, that neither the state nor the private sector has a reasonable interest in limiting deliberate, misinformative speech that causes unnecessary sickness and death?

I hate to have to always state the obvious, but the conservatives seem to perpetually choose the dumbest shit to be their free speech battleground. Why don't you guys start your own site, called "A place for angry morons" and everyone will just know, automatically, not to trust anything said there. Oh, wait, you already have that. It's called "every conservative conspiracy site".

Oye!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I like the my "My body my choice" slogan. And I like the fact that human beings know that if another human is not in a position to make a choice, caring compassionate people should do it for them.
If a drunk person has passed out, it is fine to remove them from the tracks so the train doesn't hit them...because we all know that's what they would want if they could decide.
If a mentally challenged person does not have the ability think rationally and/or the ability communicate, it is fine for us to make the choice for them and give them proper care.....because we all know that's what they would do if they could decide.
If a fetus does not have the ability to communicate with us and can't explain that it chooses to not get chopped into pieces, it is fine for us to stop the murder..... because we know that's what the tiny babies would want if they could decide.
Compassionate people give a voice to the helpless. Barbarians have no love or respect for the vulnerable.

And if someone is acting out a political agenda based on deliberately false and misleading information so that they fail to take reasonable steps to save their own life and health and/or protect the lives and health of others (such as getting vaccinated in order to stop the spread of a potentially lethal disease that has already reached pandemic proportions) then, naturally, you would agree that someone else should step in and make the decision that any reasonable and rationally informed person would make for them - even if it requires force to get them to comply - right?