- Joined
- Jun 7, 2021
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 5
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.
uuuhm . . . what do "websites or apps" have to do with freedom of speech? LOLWhy do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.
Why do people get banned that one centrist just for posting?
I am posting in this here thread.
That's a violation of the First Amendment.
Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.
Give me my damned boots back!FEAR MY JACKBOOTS OF THE OPPRESSIVE STATE.
I sure hope so!Can the huge actors like Facebook, Twitter and the like now be considered essentially monopolies and can they be subject to anti trust legislation?
Government can limit speech only very slightly.Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.
The First Amendment is as follows:Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.
Freedom of speech is a right based on the limitations of government. Unless harm can be shown (libel/slander, call to harm or kill) the government is not supposed to give punishment what was said, nor are others supposed to violate the speaker's rights as punishment for the speech.Why do peoples get banned that one centrist just for posting.
But they looks so good on him.Give me my damned boots back!
Monopolies of what? That is what first has to be determined. And even so, that right of theirs to limit speech on their platforms only does nothing to even de facto limit individual speech. We are still free to go out in the world's and say and print whatever we want. Freedom of speech does not come with a guarantee of platform for said speech.It is true that private companies can ban whatever speech they want.
But this opens a can of worms. Can the huge actors like Facebook, Twitter and the like now be considered essentially monopolies and can they be subject to anti trust legislation?
I wonder if this has been considered.
It is true that private companies can ban whatever speech they want.
But this opens a can of worms. Can the huge actors like Facebook, Twitter and the like now be considered essentially monopolies and can they be subject to anti trust legislation?
I wonder if this has been considered.
Well, that's the argument, is it not? Are the big SM outlets now media 'utilities' to be regulated. Probably so. The problem remains, though, can the government make them, in violation of the Constitution, permit free speech for their employees.Can multiple social media entities be considered monopolies? This opens a huge can of worms on the definition of the word and the English language!
In the US, media is not the same as a utility, such as electric or gas. Quite honestly, I find any regulation of content to be in violation of the Constitution. Regulation of frequency use, is a different manner so as to prevent overlapping signals of two or more broadcasters trying to use the same frequency in the same area.Well, that's the argument, is it not? Are the big SM outlets now media 'utilities' to be regulated. Probably so. The problem remains, though, can the government make them, in violation of the Constitution, permit free speech for their employees.
Are you speaking as a utility as in the same way you treat the telly?The SM will eventually be treated as a utility, eventually, like electric or gas.
The law rules, not your desires. Government cannot forbid free expression generally and cannot force private business to permit it without tweaking the law. That will be interesting.