• 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

Linuxcooldude

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
10,675
Reaction score
4,242
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech.


 
Thanks, we need yet another thread on this.

God Bless.
 
Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech.



Attorney Linuxcooldude?

Or just sorta....."I don't like this target therefore they must be violating the constitution"?





If it's Attorney Linuxcooldude, what cases ruling that private entities are state actors are you relying on?
 
Attorney Linuxcooldude?

Or just sorta....."I don't like this target therefore they must be violating the constitution"?





If it's Attorney Linuxcooldude, what cases ruling that private entities are state actors are you relying on?

The Constitution is quite clear on the government suppressing free speech in which is colluding with Facebook to do so. Same with Trump deleting comments on his personal Twitter account he had before he was president and the same with AOC deleting posts off her account as well.
 
The Constitution is quite clear on the government suppressing free speech in which is colluding with Facebook to do so. Same with Trump deleting comments on his personal Twitter account he had before he was president and the same with AOC deleting posts off her account as well.

no cases then. k
 
The government doesn't own Facebook. Facebook is a privately owned company. The decisionmaker is Facebook. The First Amendment does not apply.

Trump supporters don't care.

Mike Lee's argument makes no legal sense to me, but then again Mike Lee has an unnaturally shaped head and a blank, dead look in his eyes that goes well with his patriotic tie.
 
The Constitution is quite clear on the government suppressing free speech in which is colluding with Facebook to do so. Same with Trump deleting comments on his personal Twitter account he had before he was president and the same with AOC deleting posts off her account as well.

AOC. Drink! 🍺
 
Is Facebook funded, owned or operated by US government @ any level? If not, How is this a Constitutional question @ all?

Push comes to shove, if COVID-19 were a deadly pandemic, on the level of say the 1918 influenza pandemic, federal government could invoke public safety/national security grounds to control social media & probably MSM public media - whether in private hands or not. It would be better not to test that theory, of course - the pandemic that would require invoking that step would kill/sicken/injure a lot of people & cause even more damage to the US & World economy.
 
Seriously, though. People need to realize how stupid it is to say "oh, the constitution clearly prohibits X" with a citation to nothing unless you've said something like "warrants must be supported by probable cause".

Your personal feelings about what a provision mean nothing. The only thing that means anything is what courts have said and a prediction - itself based on reading the bodies of law that are relevant - on where they're likely to go.



I understand caring about result. I do not understand "my ignorance is better than anyone's knowledge, experience, and judgment".







So are we considering social media are considered state actors when the government deletes posts off of their accounts?

You said "Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech."

One
of the questions that must be answered is whether or not Facebook is considered a "state actor" under controlling precedent. SCOTUS, if you want to be as sure as you can be. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that exact question, so analysis requires analysis of decisions about state actor in general, SCOTUS cases obviously being the most important. Nationwide, you'd need a SCOTUS ruling. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that SCOTUS should adopt the reasoning of other decisions, be they by federal circuit courts, federal district courts, various state courts interpreting state constitutional provisions or applying federal ones. Etc.

Law takes time. Especially appeals. Especially "this thing right here is unconstitutional!"
 
Last edited:
So are we considering social media are considered state actors when the government deletes posts off of their accounts?

I like how with each post, you assume a little bit more, and then a little bit more.

It's almost as if you are trying to talk yourself into believing something.

Let me know when you get there.
 
Seriously, though. People need to realize how stupid it is to say "oh, the constitution clearly prohibits X" with a citation to nothing unless you've said something like "warrants must be supported by probable cause".

Your personal feelings about what a provision mean nothing. The only thing that means anything is what courts have said and a prediction - itself based on reading the bodies of law that are relevant - on where they're likely to go.



I understand caring about result. I do not understand "my ignorance is better than anyone's knowledge, experience, and judgment".

In his defense, I can kind of understand him being utterly confused when you basically ask, "What does the case law say?"

He's probably wondering what the **** you're talking about. He's tempted of accusing you of deflecting from the main topic, which is how the judge in his brain has already ruled on the matter.
 
So are we considering social media are considered state actors when the government deletes posts off of their accounts?

Does the government do that? Delete posts off of Facebook accounts?

Under national security concerns, federal government could perhaps seize control of Facebook, for instance. Whether anyone in federal government would have the time, interest, nor tools to effectively shut down individual accounts, let alone scrutinize every posting & rule on the national security merits of each & every one - is very unlikely. I would expect that federal government would either shut down offending sites altogether, or perhaps not permit discussions of certain subjects - a more measured attempt to throttle some discussion. But it would still take a lot of eyeballs & AI assistance, to carry out even that more limited control of content.
 
Last edited:
So I guess you guys are fine with the government violating the 1st Amendment for which could include the news media. Which might also violate the freedom of the press if posts were removed from the press releases too. Wow, incredible. Not a surprise though for you guys.
 
So I guess you guys are fine with the government violating the 1st Amendment for which could include the news media. Which might also violate the freedom of the press if posts were removed from the press releases too. Wow, incredible. Not a surprise though for you guys.
Yeah its great
 
Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech.



senator Mike Lee has been way too quiet.
 
So I guess you guys are fine with the government violating the 1st Amendment for which could include the news media. Which might also violate the freedom of the press if posts were removed from the press releases too. Wow, incredible. Not a surprise though for you guys.

I am fine with every single thing that you can dream about in your horrorscape.

I support every judicial decision handed down by the kangaroo court in your head.

I'm also fine with the stolen election.
 
In his defense, I can kind of understand him being utterly confused when you basically ask, "What does the case law say?"

He's probably wondering what the **** you're talking about. He's tempted of accusing you of deflecting from the main topic, which is how the judge in his brain has already ruled on the matter.

"My suitcase says 'Macy's' on it"
 
So are we considering social media are considered state actors when the government deletes posts off of their accounts?
The government officials would be state actors. It works the same way as if they were using a private email account to conduct official business. They cannot delete those emails legally.
 
So I guess you guys are fine with the government violating the 1st Amendment for which could include the news media. Which might also violate the freedom of the press if posts were removed from the press releases too. Wow, incredible. Not a surprise though for you guys.
You really don't seem to understand the 1st Amendment. Private companies can delete posts and messages, etc on their site. Government officials utilizing the sites, their accounts on the sites for official state business cannot block people. The press has no freedom of the press on someone else's website. And they can also decide what to print/post and what not to print/post, because they are also a private entity.
 
Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech.


If Joe suggested I do his bidding I would just go ahead and do it before he challenged me to a push up contest , or worse .
He is one tough dude !
Biden pop.png
 
You really don't seem to understand the 1st Amendment. Private companies can delete posts and messages, etc on their site. Government officials utilizing the sites, their accounts on the sites for official state business cannot block people. The press has no freedom of the press on someone else's website. And they can also decide what to print/post and what not to print/post, because they are also a private entity.
You can fairly remove the "really" and "seem to" from your first sentence. With each of his posts, he demonstrates an abject failure to understand what the 1st amendment is and what it is not. There seems to be a lot of that going around amongst the ardent Trumpers and faux conservatives.
 
Attorney Linuxcooldude?

Or just sorta....."I don't like this target therefore they must be violating the constitution"?





If it's Attorney Linuxcooldude, what cases ruling that private entities are state actors are you relying on?
Listen... if you don't like this target then you just take your happy ass to that walmart!
 
So I guess you guys are fine with the government violating the 1st Amendment for which could include the news media. Which might also violate the freedom of the press if posts were removed from the press releases too. Wow, incredible. Not a surprise though for you guys.

I just want people to note the dishonesty in the above post. He did not quote me. But he was replying to:

Seriously, though. People need to realize how stupid it is to say "oh, the constitution clearly prohibits X" with a citation to nothing unless you've said something like "warrants must be supported by probable cause".

Your personal feelings about what a provision mean nothing. The only thing that means anything is what courts have said and a prediction - itself based on reading the bodies of law that are relevant - on where they're likely to go.



I understand caring about result. I do not understand "my ignorance is better than anyone's knowledge, experience, and judgment".









You said "Press Secretary admits White House working with Facebook on removing claimed misinformation which violates 1st Amendment. First it's racist policies, now government suppressing free speech."

One
of the questions that must be answered is whether or not Facebook is considered a "state actor" under controlling precedent. SCOTUS, if you want to be as sure as you can be. SCOTUS hasn't ruled on that exact question, so analysis requires analysis of decisions about state actor in general, SCOTUS cases obviously being the most important. Nationwide, you'd need a SCOTUS ruling. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that SCOTUS should adopt the reasoning of other decisions, be they by federal circuit courts, federal district courts, various state courts interpreting state constitutional provisions or applying federal ones. Etc.

Law takes time. Especially appeals. Especially "this thing right here is unconstitutional!"
 
Back
Top Bottom