• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House colludes with Facebook 1st Amendment violations

These people talking about free speech... who don't think or talk about "Responsible Speech".....
  • I wonder how to they correct their kids who use abusive, misleading, or lying speech?
IF they do correct their kids, why can't they correct themselves.

Most of such types who push this delusions they can say anything they want,
  • only want to promote the anti democracy right wing spins,
  • speech tries to deny something to society or groups or someone;
  • speech that want to try and stagnate or regress something,
  • and they want to think they are covert in spinning their promotional white nationalist spins.

Thank goodness, Universities take a stand in not allowing such on their campuses. and hopefully social media takes a firmer stand against allowing such, because it is not 'Responsible Speech that Supports, Benefits, or Advances America's Democracy.

Hopefully America will eventually grow up enough to actually allow "free speech" (at least on the campuses of post-secondary educational institutions and in public parks) to the same extent that it happens at "Speakers' Corner" in Hyde Park. [NOTE - The police do not consider any actual call for actual and immediate violence to be "lawful" - and that's about the only restriction placed on speakers. Should a speaker actually be calling for actual and immediate violence, the speaker will be "invited to leave" but will NOT be killed, shot, beaten, or arrested (arrested they will be if they decline the invitation to leave AND cause a disturbance when doing so).
 
They are making it known the misinformation is aiding the pandemic. Get it?
You keep calling out the 'what' (pandemic related) as if this gave it a pass as to the constitutionality (A1), which it doesn't.

'Get it?' Yeah, I 'Get it'.
Democrats want to flog on pandemic panic as it gives them more political power and control (arbitrary, non-science based, small business shutdowns), which is all they want (one party rule - their one party - Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, nor should it ever work like that)
 
You keep calling out the 'what' (pandemic related) as if this gave it a pass as to the constitutionality (A1), which it doesn't.

'Get it?' Yeah, I 'Get it'.
Democrats want to flog on pandemic panic as it gives them more political power and control (arbitrary, non-science based, small business shutdowns), which is all they want (one party rule - their one party - Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, nor should it ever work like that)

The Delta Variant is real and again the rightwing morons have to make it about everything else that is bs.
 
That would just be the start. Anytime the Biden Administration deems posts to be detrimental to its policies would continue to collude with social media to violate free speech by the government.
You fight your battles and we'll see where this goes. There is no reason anyone should be allowed a world wide platform to spread lies about a vaccine designed to eradicate a deadly virus.
 
The Delta Variant is real and again the rightwing morons have to make it about everything else that is bs.
Whether the Delta Variant is real or not is not at question.

You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?
 
Whether the Delta Variant is real or not is not at question.

You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?

Is it fun ignoring the medical misinformation that exists because of political bias.
 
Is it fun ignoring the medical misinformation that exists because of political bias.
Isn't it 'fun' when political bias censors lab leak theories which in the end appear to be true?

Diversion. You've not answered the questions posed. As I am kind and tolerant, I'll repeat myself so perhaps you can respond to the questions posed:

You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?

Last chance to respond to these central and fundamental questions.
 
Isn't it 'fun' when political bias censors lab leak theories which in the end appear to be true?

Diversion. You've not answered the questions posed. As I am kind and tolerant, I'll repeat myself so perhaps you can respond to the questions posed:

You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?

Last chance to respond to these central and fundamental questions.

Where does this fall in you misleading 1st amendment argument? The pandemic is real, right?
 
Where does this fall in you misleading 1st amendment argument? The pandemic is real, right?
Dodge. Changing the subject.

You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?

The 1A argument and whether the pandemic is real or not are separate questions from the above I've posed, which you appear to be unwilling or unable to answer.

Ball in your court. Answer the legitimate on topic questions posed.
 
Now your being daft and being totally disengenious on the White House being the government.

Its not cherry picking when it breaks down three reasons why a private entity can be considered a "State Actor". Section iii being one of them. And notice, you don't have to violate all three. Just one section is enough to be considered as a state actor.
Here I will make it easy for you since you seem to be struggling with this. Facebook is not a state actor. There now see. Now you can go on about the rest of your day without enduring angst about NOTHING.
 
huh, actually, that right there is unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

secetion 230 allows the abridgement of speech, thus it is unconstitutional as enacted by congress.
🤣 No.

The 1st amendment guarantees protection from the government restricting citizens free speech, not a privately owned company.

And Section 230 doesn’t authorize privately owned social media platforms to flag/censor users content. The platforms already had that right. What 230 did was protect privately owned social media platforms from civil liability.

“(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict ac- cess to material described in paragraph (1).”
 
Dodge. Changing the subject.

You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?

The 1A argument and whether the pandemic is real or not are separate questions from the above I've posed, which you appear to be unwilling or unable to answer.

Ball in your court. Answer the legitimate on topic questions posed.

Your strange argument is null and void because of the pandemic, when persons refuse to acknowledge covid is passed from person to person. You cant argue my body bs when persons refuse to acknowledge medical facts.
 
Here I will make it easy for you since you seem to be struggling with this. Facebook is not a state actor. There now see. Now you can go on about the rest of your day without enduring angst about NOTHING.
Here is an argument where Facebook could be considered a 'state actor'.

Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ


Save the Constitution From Big Tech Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and...​
Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.​
Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”​
So at the government’s inducement and threats, these companies are censoring content those government representatives don’t like. That makes these companies state actors.​
If Congress and the White House pose 'carrot and stick' approach to social media companies to censor user's content they don't like, the argument cited quite rightly classifies those social media companies as 'state actors', as per SCOTUS rulings which have been cited in these forums.

Your denial that those social media companies can't be considered 'state actors' appears to be driven by partisanship and denial.
 
Here is an argument where Facebook could be considered a 'state actor'.

Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ


Save the Constitution From Big Tech Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and...​
Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.​
Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”​
So at the government’s inducement and threats, these companies are censoring content those government representatives don’t like. That makes these companies state actors.
If Congress and the White House pose 'carrot and stick' approach to social media companies to censor user's content they don't like, the argument cited quite rightly classifies those social media companies as 'state actors', as per SCOTUS rulings which have been cited in these forums.

Your denial that those social media companies can't be considered 'state actors' appears to be driven by partisanship and denial.
A) there is no proof that the emboldened line of text in your post is accurate. Trump wants to explore that argument further....Be my guest Donnie. You are going to have to do it on your nickel now, not the government nickel and when you are done you are going to be hit with court and legal fees from your opponents. Good luck with that too and you are going to face Discovery along the way. Good luck with that too.
B) The social media giants are only motivated by profit...that it is. That is all of it. They really don't give a rats behind what is posted up by users. More postings are good. Fewer postings are bad is their mantra. Zuckergoon's social conscience no matter how many times he suggests he has one is non-existent. Mr "Unity and Commumications" between people is nothing more than an opportunistic profiteer.

What the Social Media giants are trying to do is keep EVERYBODY on board and using their platforms to post and click which relates directly to their revenue.

They don't take down posters for posting BS about COVID vaccines. They take down posters for posting violent and hateful rhetoric. There is a difference. They flag posts that appear to be fantastical on their face and what does that prompt some users in the audience to do? They have already seen the whacko post so it does not prevent that. It encourages some users in the audience to go find some posts that contradict the post that has been flagged. Where does the audience do that? ON FACEBOOK!

I actually think that if the social media giants thought they could still maintain their status as a "good corporate citizen" and leave up violent and hateful rhetoric, they would leave that crap up there as well. But they can't and the cost to their revenue streams for not maintaining some level of status as a good corporate citizen is greater than whatever revenue they would achieve by allowing violent and hateful speech to flourish on their platforms.

For the record, IMO Donnie's suit will be folded up by Donnie himself before it gets to Discovery. He will get all the mileage in GRIFT and PR he can get out of it and fold it up. Good luck getting him to send you back your check when he folds the whole thing up.
 
Maybe you should visit some other countries and try 'saying anything you think you want to say".... and see how that works for you.
  • You likely will come back and learn to respect the parameters of "America's Free Speech" in the context of "Responsible Speech".
This is not the pre-1960's of white nationalist segregation, when "white people" could say anything they wanted about to or about other ethnic groups and suffer no consequences. That's the craziness that white nationalist agenda of the past allowed too many to think they can continue in this day and time doing what their ancestry did.

After Charlottesville and Jan. 6th savages terrorist treasonous attack on the U.S. Capitol and American Democracy.... "There is no more of the "assuming that just because a group has white skin, that they are not a domestic threat"... That delusions is over!!!
It may have worked during Jim Crow, when whites supported whites attacking blacks and other minorities and then pretending that the white people were not criminal in such savagery, well.... Civil Rights Legislation put laws in place to address such motivation and agenda and there is no more "all white juries" and "all white judges" to give them a pass for being white people.

We will get some legislation in place (and hopefully it happens sooner than later), to stop these race hate groups and anti government types from parading with their military styled gear and military styled and likeness weapons from being a part of any public assembly. Then make it a automatic Felony punishable by a 20 yrs Federal Sentence, to go on any Federal, State, or Local Government Building or grounds carrying weapons, i.e. guns, long guns, assault style weapons, and bullet proof vest and other type things that can be added to the list, such as what these terroristic insurrectionist did in Michigan and other places.

Not one of these groups will go to a court house or governmental civic building in Beverly Hills, Palm Spring, North Hills, East Hills, Scarsdale, Highland Park or any other wealthy city in any state and try this stuff. The laws against it will get passed quicker than one can drink a glass of water.

That would be for Facebook to decide. The government flagging and attempting to remove post is a freedom of speech issue. Now if it's a supposed "Responsible Speech" they need to go through the courts for that.

You cannot infringe on freedom of speech to claim responsible speech. That is something for the courts to decide.
 
Your strange argument is null and void because of the pandemic, when persons refuse to acknowledge covid is passed from person to person. You cant argue my body bs when persons refuse to acknowledge medical facts.
Why can't you answer his specific question? Should individuals have the right to make their own risk assessments and medical decisions? Yes or no?
 
[1] Yes you did, and I showed you how those definitions did NOT apply.

[2] Once again, show me the LAW that Congress passed (which is a necessity to prove a violation of that particular "constitutional right").

2. Er, hello...1st Amendment, freedom of speech.
 
That would be for Facebook to decide. The government flagging and attempting to remove post is a freedom of speech issue. Now if it's a supposed "Responsible Speech" they need to go through the courts for that.

You cannot infringe on freedom of speech to claim responsible speech. That is something for the courts to decide.

The WH making it known to FB about the massive misinformation is not a 1st amendment issue. You and Trump do not understand the law, you both only care about the perception.
 
Your "it is written that the federal government will not abridge free speech" is about as close to being totally wrong as it can be without slipping over the line into delusion.

There are a plethora of federal government laws (and regulations) that restrict what a person may say and under what conditions they may say it and the courts have upheld those laws time after time after time.

Again, the government can't justify infringing free speech just to claim unjustified free speech. They need to go to the courts.
 
Why can't you answer his specific question? Should individuals have the right to make their own risk assessments and medical decisions? Yes or no?
[/

Based on legit information absolutely, but there are too many dumb people in this country.
 
Again, the government can't justify infringing free speech just to claim unjustified free speech. They need to go to the courts.
The government in this instance is not infringing free speech.
 
@US&THEM Re your "Based on legit information absolutely, but there are too many dumb people in this country," I hope you don't mean that because there are too many dumb people, their "betters" should make their decisions for them.
 

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Friday criticized social media platforms like Facebook for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus and vaccines, as his administration has blamed them for stalling U.S. vaccine rates.

"They’re killing people," Biden said when asked what his message was to social media platforms like Facebook on the spread of false and misleading claims about the virus and the safety of vaccines that prevent it.

"The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that’s — they’re killing people," he continued.
. . .


Facebook Inc. said it has removed more than 18 million posts on its main social networking site and the photo sharing app Instagram for violating its Covid-19 misinformation policy since the beginning of the pandemic.

18 millions posts censored and accounts have deemed by judge, jury and executioner Facebook of spreading this to called 'misinformation' has been reported.

Not enough censorship for this White House? Should be noted that the well evidence and substantiated 'Lab Leak theory' of the Wuhan virus was also censored by much the same players.

So what's really driving this?


. . .
Facebook took issue with the president.

"We will not be distracted by accusations which aren’t supported by the facts," a company spokesman said. "The fact is that more than 2 billion people have viewed authoritative information about COVID-19 and vaccines on Facebook, which is more than any other place on the internet. More than 3.3 million Americans have also used our vaccine finder tool to find out where and how to get a vaccine. The facts show that Facebook is helping save lives. Period.”

Ahh. All clear now.

The White House can't possibly accept that there are people who have made their own medical decision based on their own risk analysis and have elected to not get the vaccine, and that the White House's vaccinate goals are in jeopardy. So the White House, rather than accepting the responsibility is looking for a scapegoat, Facebook and other social media companies likely to be those, never mind the mixed messages about masks, vaccine effectiveness, et. al. coming from the administration, they have all rendered an absolutely perfect performance (in their own minds).

It must simply stick sideways in Biden's and his White House's throat, that people could possibly make medical decisions for themselves and by themselves, which the Biden and White House doesn't agree with. You are see the under tones: 'These people must be made to comply with our decisions, after all, government always knows best' :)rolleyes: - in a pig's eye).
 
Your strange argument is null and void because of the pandemic, when persons refuse to acknowledge covid is passed from person to person. You cant argue my body bs when persons refuse to acknowledge medical facts.
Is your worry that someone makes a medical decision for themselves and by themselves which you don't agree with?
If you are vaccinated, what's your worry?

Or is it that the vaccine is not as effective as you (and most of the present administration) pretend that it is?

Or is it that in your view, medical decisions directly affecting an individual are no longer left up to that induvial? That government should make all of the individual's medical decisions for them?

My position has been clear and consistent: People are the sole decision makers for their medical decisions. Period.
Government may not intrude, intercede, or thwart those decisions. i.e. 'By Body, My Choice'.
Or does this only apply to an individual's medical decisions that you agree with? And if not agreeing with them, the individual's decision should be overwritten by government?
 
Back
Top Bottom