Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures (1 Viewer)

[cpwill]

Wrong, and it will be forever wrong as you have no provided any proof of your position.

Indeed.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[3leftsdoo]

As this thread has descended into drawing ridiculous conclusions about itself and its participants, it's interesting to consider - as an aside - how many will acknowledge their erroneous position after the Supremes rule.

 

[Oborosen]

As this thread has descended into drawing ridiculous conclusions about itself and its participants, it's interesting to consider - as an aside - how many will acknowledge their erroneous position after the Supremes rule.

I honestly have no idea at this point.

With the arrival of multiple countries calling for more internet censorship and the US's action to say no to such a call. I'm just happy to see that we can go a few more years without our own anti-free speech laws being tossed into place.

Just going to count my blessing, so to speak.

 

[Peter King]

As this thread has descended into drawing ridiculous conclusions about itself and its participants, it's interesting to consider - as an aside - how many will acknowledge their erroneous position after the Supremes rule.

You keep claiming a ruling of the Supreme justices but there is NO CASE about this is front of the docket (or you have shown us no evidence of such a case). So there will be no ruling anytime soon if ever. If this case ever gets out of lower court, there is no guarantee that the SC justices will pick this up.

And this thread has descended because into a thread full of nonsensical non responses (usually full of incorrect comments) and a position about this case that is based on personal view rather than the law, jurisprudence and reality (and yes I am talking about the baseless positions that FB is bound by the 1st amendment and that what they are doing is illegal).

Where are the police reports about the illegal acts of FB? Where is the evidence that this is a first amendment case at all? Disregarding the fact that FB is not something of the government and has no duty to provide room for people who break FB's rules?

So for all concerned, the first amendment is that the government or it's agents cannot limit freedom of speech. Now if a website is being used by an agent of the government (say the president and twitter) than that state agent may not ban people from his twitter account as he is proclaiming official acts and views on there. But that is not about twitter in itself, it is about it's user and the defendant in such a case would not be twitter but would be the user (in this case the president) who cannot ban people from his account as he is using it for state business. The same with other cases. FB when used by a government representative has to allow responses on it because of the nature of who has the facebook account.

The government has been banned from forbidding dirt bags, sorry, sex offenders from using facebook/twitter/etc. because that would limit their ability to use their freedom of speech (and other rights possibly) but again the defendant in this case was the government, not facebook/twitter.

As long as facebook bans people in accordance to its terms of service (what we sign to uphold and adhere to as FB members) than the first amendment is never going to apply. It has nothing to do with the government who isn't allowed to censor opinions and even that is not absolute. Hate speech, child pornography, defamation/slander, incitement to violence and true threats of violence as not freedom of speech examples that are legal. So even there it is not an absolute freedom of speech. And if the government can ban hate speech/etc. than why cannot FB.

The idea that everybody has a right to FB is ludicrous, in principle everybody may have the right to join, but if you abuse that right, you get banned. That is logical and not a freedom of speech issue.

 

[3leftsdoo]

You keep claiming a ruling of the Supreme justices but there is NO CASE about this is front of the docket (or you have shown us no evidence of such a case). So there will be no ruling anytime soon if ever. If this case ever gets out of lower court, there is no guarantee that the SC justices will pick this up.

And this thread has descended because into a thread full of nonsensical non responses (usually full of incorrect comments) and a position about this case that is based on personal view rather than the law, jurisprudence and reality (and yes I am talking about the baseless positions that FB is bound by the 1st amendment and that what they are doing is illegal).

Where are the police reports about the illegal acts of FB? Where is the evidence that this is a first amendment case at all? Disregarding the fact that FB is not something of the government and has no duty to provide room for people who break FB's rules?

So for all concerned, the first amendment is that the government or it's agents cannot limit freedom of speech. Now if a website is being used by an agent of the government (say the president and twitter) than that state agent may not ban people from his twitter account as he is proclaiming official acts and views on there. But that is not about twitter in itself, it is about it's user and the defendant in such a case would not be twitter but would be the user (in this case the president) who cannot ban people from his account as he is using it for state business. The same with other cases. FB when used by a government representative has to allow responses on it because of the nature of who has the facebook account.

The government has been banned from forbidding dirt bags, sorry, sex offenders from using facebook/twitter/etc. because that would limit their ability to use their freedom of speech (and other rights possibly) but again the defendant in this case was the government, not facebook/twitter.

As long as facebook bans people in accordance to its terms of service (what we sign to uphold and adhere to as FB members) than the first amendment is never going to apply. It has nothing to do with the government who isn't allowed to censor opinions and even that is not absolute. Hate speech, child pornography, defamation/slander, incitement to violence and true threats of violence as not freedom of speech examples that are legal. So even there it is not an absolute freedom of speech. And if the government can ban hate speech/etc. than why cannot FB.

The idea that everybody has a right to FB is ludicrous, in principle everybody may have the right to join, but if you abuse that right, you get banned. That is logical and not a freedom of speech issue.

Correct on one point! :shock:

There is no case before the Supremes.

Yet.

The rest is re-hash; tic-tac-toe.

 

[Peter King]

Correct on one point! :shock:

There is no case before the Supremes.

Yet.

The rest is re-hash; tic-tac-toe.

The rest is factual and reality, you know, the things you keep calling incorrect and ignoring.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The rest is factual and reality, you know, the things you keep calling incorrect and ignoring.

No.

I put an O in the center.

 

[Peter King]

No.

I put an O in the center.

Nope, still a nothing answer which does not address anything.

 

[j-mac]

You keep claiming a ruling of the Supreme justices but there is NO CASE about this is front of the docket (or you have shown us no evidence of such a case). So there will be no ruling anytime soon if ever. If this case ever gets out of lower court, there is no guarantee that the SC justices will pick this up.

And this thread has descended because into a thread full of nonsensical non responses (usually full of incorrect comments) and a position about this case that is based on personal view rather than the law, jurisprudence and reality (and yes I am talking about the baseless positions that FB is bound by the 1st amendment and that what they are doing is illegal).

Where are the police reports about the illegal acts of FB? Where is the evidence that this is a first amendment case at all? Disregarding the fact that FB is not something of the government and has no duty to provide room for people who break FB's rules?

So for all concerned, the first amendment is that the government or it's agents cannot limit freedom of speech. Now if a website is being used by an agent of the government (say the president and twitter) than that state agent may not ban people from his twitter account as he is proclaiming official acts and views on there. But that is not about twitter in itself, it is about it's user and the defendant in such a case would not be twitter but would be the user (in this case the president) who cannot ban people from his account as he is using it for state business. The same with other cases. FB when used by a government representative has to allow responses on it because of the nature of who has the facebook account.

The government has been banned from forbidding dirt bags, sorry, sex offenders from using facebook/twitter/etc. because that would limit their ability to use their freedom of speech (and other rights possibly) but again the defendant in this case was the government, not facebook/twitter.

As long as facebook bans people in accordance to its terms of service (what we sign to uphold and adhere to as FB members) than the first amendment is never going to apply. It has nothing to do with the government who isn't allowed to censor opinions and even that is not absolute. Hate speech, child pornography, defamation/slander, incitement to violence and true threats of violence as not freedom of speech examples that are legal. So even there it is not an absolute freedom of speech. And if the government can ban hate speech/etc. than why cannot FB.

The idea that everybody has a right to FB is ludicrous, in principle everybody may have the right to join, but if you abuse that right, you get banned. That is logical and not a freedom of speech issue.

Does FB terms say that being a conservative is prohibited?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[3leftsdoo]

Nope, still a nothing answer which does not address anything.

Incorrect.

And I place an O in the upper right corner.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Does FB terms say that being a conservative is prohibited?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

No, and neither that being a leftist is prohibited.

But large numbers of both groups, traditionally opposed to illiberal group-think, have been silenced of late.

The Supremes will iron it out, however - never fear.

 

[j-mac]

No, and neither that being a leftist is prohibited.

But large numbers of both groups, traditionally opposed to illiberal group-think, have been silenced of late.

The Supremes will iron it out, however - never fear.

Could you explain further? For instance, what do you mean by the phrase "groups traditionally opposed to illiberal groupthink "?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Praxas]

Does FB terms say that being a conservative is prohibited?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Are all conservatives banned from Facebook? No

 

[Peter King]

Does FB terms say that being a conservative is prohibited?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Nope, however it does say what is banned and as both left and right have been banned, this is not an ideological issue but a content issue that facebook found objectionable.

 

[Peter King]

Incorrect.

And I place an O in the upper right corner.

Non-response response, you say nothing with your response. Proof that Facebook breaks the law/does something illegal by banning people who violated the terms of service.

 

[Ikari]

Nope, however it does say what is banned and as both left and right have been banned, this is not an ideological issue but a content issue that facebook found objectionable.

Indeed, they have banned people on both sides of the isle and they aren't specifically targeting anyone who happens to profess conservative ideals. Just folk they feel have violated their TOS and content they don't wish to host. It's absurd to think that this is somehow a 1S issue as Facebook is private and it doesn't hold a monopoly on internet access or social media exposure.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Could you explain further? For instance, what do you mean by the phrase "groups traditionally opposed to illiberal groupthink "?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Here's a clue:

 

[Peter King]

The first ruling of the supreme court has come out on 1st amendment and private companies. In this case it was a time warner tv-station and someone complained about content and used the 1st amendment as a basis for his lawsuit and time warner having to comply with the claimants 1st amendment rights, even if it was a private company.

So as we have been saying to the "wait for the supreme's ruling lot/posters", 1st amendment is not guaranteed on private companies and while the facebook issue might run differently but the first strike is against the argument that 1st amendment rights have to be guaranteed by facebook/twitter, it is not at all guaranteed as per the ruling of the "supreme's".

 

[3leftsdoo]

Could you explain further? For instance, what do you mean by the phrase "groups traditionally opposed to illiberal groupthink "?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Illiberal groupthink is represented by a narrow set of mindless conservative values; pro-corporate, anti-constitutional, hypocritical, bigoted, ignorant, highly privileged.

In this instance, illiberals seek to narrow speech, closing down viewpoints expressed by both the right and the left, and permit only corporate-friendly hollowspeak.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Indeed, they have banned people on both sides of the isle and they aren't specifically targeting anyone who happens to profess conservative ideals. Just folk they feel have violated their TOS and content they don't wish to host. It's absurd to think that this is somehow a 1S issue as Facebook is private and it doesn't hold a monopoly on internet access or social media exposure.

Incorrect; covered extensively.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Here's a clue:

View attachment 67256740

Incomprehensible nonsense.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The first ruling of the supreme court has come out on 1st amendment and private companies. In this case it was a time warner tv-station and someone complained about content and used the 1st amendment as a basis for his lawsuit and time warner having to comply with the claimants 1st amendment rights, even if it was a private company.

So as we have been saying to the "wait for the supreme's ruling lot/posters", 1st amendment is not guaranteed on private companies and while the facebook issue might run differently but the first strike is against the argument that 1st amendment rights have to be guaranteed by facebook/twitter, it is not at all guaranteed as per the ruling of the "supreme's".

Irrelevant; completely different issue as extensively covered.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Incomprehensible nonsense.

Just because you don't comprehend something doesn't make it nonsense.

 

[Peter King]

Irrelevant; completely different issue as extensively covered.

No, your opinion is irrelevant, the Supreme's have started ruling and the ruling is, private business not held to the 1st amendment.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Just because you don't comprehend something doesn't make it nonsense.

Generally correct; specifically as stated.