We should require all candidates running for congress to pass a civics course

[independentusa]

I watched video's of Greene yelling at a Twitter exec today because she said they violated here constitutional right of free speech by removing her twitter account. If she had taken a civics course or at least stayed awake during the one she probably took in high school, she would know that the first amendment covering free speech is only keeping the goovernment from limiting your free speech and not corporations. Then there is my new GOP representative who was elected due to the gerrymandering of my district. He wrote on his Facebook page right after the House that is controlled by the GOP voted a bill to keep the IRS from hiring the 87.000 new agents requested by the BIden administration., that he had just fired 87,000 IRS agents. Of course comments told him that he was wrong, that the bill had to pass the Senate and be signed by the president for that to happen. He wrote back, that no, once the House passed the bill it was law and some of other commenters agreed. It was still up on his page the ther day when I checked, but I wonder if he will ever take it down. THese are two examples of why we need to require a civics course for our congress canidates so that at the least they know something about the constitution they swear to uphold. The funny thing is that if you are a non-citizen and want to become a citizen, you would have to know this tp pass the citizen's test.

 

[Chillfolks]

I think a better law would make it a crime for any elected or declared candidate to lie to the American people. Make them all be honest for a change and see what happens.

 

[Mycroft]

I watched video's of Greene yelling at a Twitter exec today because she said they violated here constitutional right of free speech by removing her twitter account. If she had taken a civics course or at least stayed awake during the one she probably took in high school, she would know that the first amendment covering free speech is only keeping the goovernment from limiting your free speech and not corporations.

When a private company is working hand in hand with, and on the orders from, a government agency...or several government agencies...to suppress a citizen's right to free speech, then that private company is just as responsible for that government agency's violation of the 1st Amendment as the agency themselves.

If there isn't already a law on the books making it a criminal offense to aid the government in violating the constitution, then perhaps that's something that Congress should create. We don't need private companies to be aiding and abetting rogue elements of the government's unconstitutional behavior.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I watched video's of Greene yelling at a Twitter exec today because she said they violated here constitutional right of free speech by removing her twitter account. If she had taken a civics course or at least stayed awake during the one she probably took in high school, she would know that the first amendment covering free speech is only keeping the goovernment from limiting your free speech and not corporations. Then there is my new GOP representative who was elected due to the gerrymandering of my district. He wrote on his Facebook page right after the House that is controlled by the GOP voted a bill to keep the IRS from hiring the 87.000 new agents requested by the BIden administration., that he had just fired 87,000 IRS agents. Of course comments told him that he was wrong, that the bill had to pass the Senate and be signed by the president for that to happen. He wrote back, that no, once the House passed the bill it was law and some of other commenters agreed. It was still up on his page the ther day when I checked, but I wonder if he will ever take it down. THese are two examples of why we need to require a civics course for our congress canidates so that at the least they know something about the constitution they swear to uphold. The funny thing is that if you are a non-citizen and want to become a citizen, you would have to know this tp pass the citizen's test.

No. "we" need to stop electing morons.

 

[Redress]

I watched video's of Greene yelling at a Twitter exec today because she said they violated here constitutional right of free speech by removing her twitter account. If she had taken a civics course or at least stayed awake during the one she probably took in high school, she would know that the first amendment covering free speech is only keeping the goovernment from limiting your free speech and not corporations. Then there is my new GOP representative who was elected due to the gerrymandering of my district. He wrote on his Facebook page right after the House that is controlled by the GOP voted a bill to keep the IRS from hiring the 87.000 new agents requested by the BIden administration., that he had just fired 87,000 IRS agents. Of course comments told him that he was wrong, that the bill had to pass the Senate and be signed by the president for that to happen. He wrote back, that no, once the House passed the bill it was law and some of other commenters agreed. It was still up on his page the ther day when I checked, but I wonder if he will ever take it down. THese are two examples of why we need to require a civics course for our congress canidates so that at the least they know something about the constitution they swear to uphold. The funny thing is that if you are a non-citizen and want to become a citizen, you would have to know this tp pass the citizen's test.

The requirements to run for Congress are laid out in the constitution. Not going to change.

 

[MamboDervish]

I think a better law would make it a crime for any elected or declared candidate to lie to the American people. Make them all be honest for a change and see what happens.

Impossible. There's simply no way to know what a person thinks or believes to be true.

 

[BlueTex]

When a private company is working hand in hand with, and on the orders from, a government agency...or several government agencies...to suppress a citizen's right to free speech, then that private company is just as responsible for that government agency's violation of the 1st Amendment as the agency themselves.

If there isn't already a law on the books making it a criminal offense to aid the government in violating the constitution, then perhaps that's something that Congress should create. We don't need private companies to be aiding and abetting rogue elements of the government's unconstitutional behavior.

What you are describing is the state actor. I will quote Judge Kavanaugh…

(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech. See, e.g., Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 737. This Court’s state-action doctrine distinguishes the government from individuals and private entities. Pp. 5–14.
(1) A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as rele
vant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re- served to the State.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352. The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158. The relevant function in this case—operation of public access channels on a cable system—has not traditionally and exclusively been performed by government. Since the 1970s, a variety of private and public ac- tors have operated public access channels. Early Manhattan public access channels were operated by private cable operators with some help from private nonprofit organizations. That practice continued until the early 1990s, when MNN began to operate the channels. Operating public access channels on a cable system is not a tradi- tional, exclusive public function. Pp. 6–8.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

Is running a website a power traditionally and exclusively performed by the government?

 

[MaryP]

I think a better law would make it a crime for any elected or declared candidate to lie to the American people. Make them all be honest for a change and see what happens.

Honestly, it should already fall under the truth in advertising law.

 

[BirdinHand]

No. "we" need to stop electing morons.

Yep.

These people are elected. (Says a lot about our voters, sadly)

 

[MamboDervish]

Yep.

These people are elected. (Says a lot about our voters, sadly)

And much worse, they are RE-elected, after we know they are morons!!

 

[samiam5211]

We aren't going to be able to legislate the lazy or stupid out of the electorate.

 

[Mycroft]

What you are describing is the state actor. I will quote Judge Kavanaugh…

(a) The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech. See, e.g., Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 737. This Court’s state-action doctrine distinguishes the government from individuals and private entities. Pp. 5–14.
(1) A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as rele
vant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re- served to the State.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352. The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158. The relevant function in this case—operation of public access channels on a cable system—has not traditionally and exclusively been performed by government. Since the 1970s, a variety of private and public ac- tors have operated public access channels. Early Manhattan public access channels were operated by private cable operators with some help from private nonprofit organizations. That practice continued until the early 1990s, when MNN began to operate the channels. Operating public access channels on a cable system is not a tradi- tional, exclusive public function. Pp. 6–8.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf

Is running a website a power traditionally and exclusively performed by the government?

What I'm describing is not a "state actor", as described in that ruling.

The question here is not whether a social media website should exist.

The question here is whether it is legal for social media websites to take orders from government agencies and suppress citizen's right to free speech when those government agencies are not allowed to issue orders that restrict free speech.

 

[BlueTex]

What I'm describing is not a "state actor", as described in that ruling.

The question here is not whether a social media website should exist.

The question here is whether it is legal for social media websites to take orders from government agencies and suppress citizen's right to free speech when those government agencies are not allowed to issue orders that restrict free speech.

LMAO… issuing orders would be compelling private companies to remove speech. That never happened

 

[Mycroft]

LMAO… issuing orders would be compelling private companies to remove speech. That never happened

The illegal orders were issued, but there was nothing enforcing compliance. Those companies were not "compelled" to do anything.

Those social media platforms willingly accepted and executed the illegal orders.

 

[BlueTex]

The illegal orders were issued, but there was nothing enforcing compliance. Those companies were not "compelled" to do anything.

Those social media platforms willingly accepted and executed the illegal orders.

LMAO…. Illegal orders but you cant cite the law prohibiting them?

 

[Mycroft]

LMAO…. Illegal orders but you cant cite the law prohibiting them?

It falls under the 1st Amendment.

First Amendment and Censorship

American Library Association has long championed the freedom of the press and the freedom to read. ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom collects resources about the First Amendment, censorship, academic freedom, and freedom of information.

www.ala.org

 

[Grand Mal]

The illegal orders were issued, but there was nothing enforcing compliance. Those companies were not "compelled" to do anything.

Those social media platforms willingly accepted and executed the illegal orders.

Example?

Be careful now, remember that there's documentation of Trump asking that Tweets critical of him be removed.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I watched video's of Greene yelling at a Twitter exec today because she said they violated here constitutional right of free speech by removing her twitter account. If she had taken a civics course or at least stayed awake during the one she probably took in high school, she would know that the first amendment covering free speech is only keeping the goovernment from limiting your free speech and not corporations. Then there is my new GOP representative who was elected due to the gerrymandering of my district. He wrote on his Facebook page right after the House that is controlled by the GOP voted a bill to keep the IRS from hiring the 87.000 new agents requested by the BIden administration., that he had just fired 87,000 IRS agents. Of course comments told him that he was wrong, that the bill had to pass the Senate and be signed by the president for that to happen. He wrote back, that no, once the House passed the bill it was law and some of other commenters agreed. It was still up on his page the ther day when I checked, but I wonder if he will ever take it down. THese are two examples of why we need to require a civics course for our congress canidates so that at the least they know something about the constitution they swear to uphold. The funny thing is that if you are a non-citizen and want to become a citizen, you would have to know this tp pass the citizen's test.

Many US native born could not pass the test required for naturalization.

Those in power chose to make changes in public school curriculums that limit learning on civics and political science. There is likely a reason for that. Those who know less about their system of governing in a democratic republic are less able to use that system to meet their best interests. To use the power of working within its framework to create change that meets their needs, wants and ends.

That way the best interests of others, purchasing influence of those who make those decisions that give them an advantage (besides their money), hold sway on using the system to meet their needs, wants and ends.

This is part of how a smaller special interest minority gets more to say about what goes on than the larger majority who ought to, by that majority, be leaning on the system with the power of its numbers.

 

[The AntiDonald]

What I'm describing is not a "state actor", as described in that ruling.

The question here is not whether a social media website should exist.

The question here is whether it is legal for social media websites to take orders from government agencies and suppress citizen's right to free speech when those government agencies are not allowed to issue orders that restrict free speech.

To the best of my knowledge, no "Orders" were ever issued by the government. Perhaps suggestions with backup data to make a point. The ultimate decision was left to the social media company, which is their right.

Pointing out lies and disinformation that can cause people to die would be the government's responsibility. Whatever the companies did with that information is on them.

You guys can argue this until your blue in the face. Have congressional hearings until the cows come home. The government never did anything that was unconstitutional. The government is acting in the best interest of the people in an attempt to stop bad, possibly deadly information from being spread.

This is exactly what I would expect from a responsible government. As opposed to, perhaps, injecting disinfectants or inserting infrared lights up one's arse. Or lying to the population saying the "the 15 cases will soon be down to zero".

You tell us all which was more responsible.

 

[Grand Mal]

It falls under the 1st Amendment.

First Amendment and Censorship

American Library Association has long championed the freedom of the press and the freedom to read. ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom collects resources about the First Amendment, censorship, academic freedom, and freedom of information.

www.ala.org

No it doesn't.
The First Amendment doesn't require anyone else to publish or broadcast what you write or say. That would violate their right.
The newspaper isn't required to print every letter to the editor, they're allowed to select. That's how the newspaper editor's right to free speech is protected, by not requiring he print an opinion he doesn't agree with.
You're entitled to speak. You're not entitled to a stage or an audience.

 

[BlueTex]

It falls under the 1st Amendment.

First Amendment and Censorship

American Library Association has long championed the freedom of the press and the freedom to read. ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom collects resources about the First Amendment, censorship, academic freedom, and freedom of information.

www.ala.org

Horseshit.. the first amendment has never required the government to be silent to industry..

 

[NuffSaid]

Example?

Be careful now, remember that there's documentation of Trump asking that Tweets critical of him be removed.

You know this will fall to silence.

 

[independentusa]

Sorry

When a private company is working hand in hand with, and on the orders from, a government agency...or several government agencies...to suppress a citizen's right to free speech, then that private company is just as responsible for that government agency's violation of the 1st Amendment as the agency themselves.

If there isn't already a law on the books making it a criminal offense to aid the government in violating the constitution, then perhaps that's something that Congress should create. We don't need private companies to be aiding and abetting rogue elements of the government's unconstitutional behavior.

, You need to take a course in contitutional law. Unless the private industry is ordered by the government or court to do so, it is the private companies perogative to decide whether to do as it wants. Since there was a request and not an order, the company nor the government violated the constitution. Trump also requested Twitter to take someone off of their account, and that also did not violate any law. Right wingerrs are upset by Twitter and now realize that as a corporation they violated nothing and your "investigation" is coming to a nothing burger.

 

[Rawley]

I watched video's of Greene yelling at a Twitter exec today because she said they violated here constitutional right of free speech by removing her twitter account. If she had taken a civics course or at least stayed awake during the one she probably took in high school, she would know that the first amendment covering free speech is only keeping the goovernment from limiting your free speech and not corporations. Then there is my new GOP representative who was elected due to the gerrymandering of my district. He wrote on his Facebook page right after the House that is controlled by the GOP voted a bill to keep the IRS from hiring the 87.000 new agents requested by the BIden administration., that he had just fired 87,000 IRS agents. Of course comments told him that he was wrong, that the bill had to pass the Senate and be signed by the president for that to happen. He wrote back, that no, once the House passed the bill it was law and some of other commenters agreed. It was still up on his page the ther day when I checked, but I wonder if he will ever take it down. THese are two examples of why we need to require a civics course for our congress canidates so that at the least they know something about the constitution they swear to uphold. The funny thing is that if you are a non-citizen and want to become a citizen, you would have to know this tp pass the citizen's test.

LOL How about passing a civics class before you can vote?

 

[CaughtInThe]

When a private company is working hand in hand with, and on the orders from, a government agency...or several government agencies...to suppress a citizen's right to free speech, then that private company is just as responsible for that government agency's violation of the 1st Amendment as the agency themselves.

a dude who has no idea what was revealed yesterday.