White House colludes with Facebook 1st Amendment violations (1 Viewer)

[poweRob]

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.

Go show the government ORDER that is FORCING anything. Mmmkay?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Isn't it not a crime for a President to collude, or is that only with Russians?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

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.

If First Amendment rights are being violated, you can prove the government itself is controlling Facebook content by individual accounts. So far no executive orders have been written for that purpose. Without an EO or a law passed by Congress, it is all just talk. I think you do not care about this because Republicans love to project unlikely disasters based on far-right lies.

 

[US&THEM]

Shhhh let these two idiots explain

Dan Bongino Slams Republicans on Big Tech: ‘Listen Guys… Get Off Your Asses’

Dan Bongino ripped Republicans for their in action in the face of Joe Biden efforts to get social media platforms to remove misinformation about Covid-19.

www.mediaite.com

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

If you actually had read and understood the 1st amendment, you wouldn’t post stupid shit like your above.

Read; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Facebook is a privately owned company. Users have no Constitutional right of free speech on a privately owned platform. Period.

Additionally, Congress created Section 230, wherein it specifically states;
“No provider or user of an interactive com- puter service shall be held liable on account of—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, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objec- tionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title47/pdf/USCODE-2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

“Could” and “might” aren’t justifications for accusing the government of actually doing something.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

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.

Rattlesnake worshipers claim the other side is against freedom of speech and the press now because they want Trump the Terrorist to be uncensored. Before he started thinking about possibly running for a political office, no Republicans even implied that kind of crap about any Democrats. Why not? Because Trump the Terrorist began leading the effort to violate 1A and free press laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Mike Lee: White House colluding with Facebook 'looks like First Amendment violation'

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on “America's Newsroom” Friday slammed the White House for flagging Facebook posts, claiming it "looks like a First Amendment violation.”

www.foxnews.com

How is it a 1A violation if the owner capitalist is doing the censoring on their private property?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

How is it a 1A violation if the owner capitalist is doing the censoring on their private property?

Because they are doing it on behalf of the government. So it's the government that is violating the 1st amendment colluding with Facebook in attempt to violate free speech. Eventually, I see the courts will get involved. I believe the courts will find social media platforms that go along with government as an extension of the government itself, not just a private company. Especially on this issue.

 

[Yakshi]

Because they are doing it on behalf of the government. So it's the government that is violating the 1st amendment colluding with Facebook in attempt to violate free speech. Eventually, I see the courts will get involved. I believe the courts will find social media platforms that go along with government as an extension of the government itself, not just a private company. Especially on this issue.

Good. Yes. Add to the fantasy. Maybe you can even craft a ruling from your Imaginary Constitution.

But also, pretend that this is all not only real, but likely, such that when it doesn't happen--and it won't--you can point to the Imaginary Deep State as the reason that you were wrong. Or Roberts, who is corrupt. Well, this is your area, not mine. I'm sure you'll think of something that will at first seem ridiculous but over time will become possible then probable then glaringly obvious.

This is going swimmingly.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If you actually had read and understood the 1st amendment, you wouldn’t post stupid shit like your above.

Read; https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Facebook is a privately owned company. Users have no Constitutional right of free speech on a privately owned platform. Period.

Additionally, Congress created Section 230, wherein it specifically states;
“No provider or user of an interactive com- puter service shall be held liable on account of—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, exces- sively violent, harassing, or otherwise objec- tionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title47/pdf/USCODE-2011-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230.pdf

Yes, I see your dumb argument which has nothing to do with what I said about the federal government. Facebook is removing posts on behalf of the government, making the government infringe on freedom of speech, not Facebook itself necessarily. But once you get the government involved with removing facebook posts, that's a violation and infringement of the freedom of speech. The bill of rights is suppose to restrict government involvement for certain rights, which it is doing now. Which is bad for everyone.

 

[Yakshi]

Yes, I see your dumb argument which has nothing to do with what I said about the federal government. Facebook is removing posts on behalf of the government, making the government infringe on freedom of speech, not Facebook itself necessarily. But once you get the government involved with removing facebook posts, that's a violation and infringement of the freedom of speech. The bill of rights is suppose to restrict government involvement for certain rights, which it is doing now. Which is bad for everyone.

Except for me. All of this is fantastic for me.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Except for me. All of this is fantastic for me.

Only for Trolls, oh, I see now.

 

[Yakshi]

Only for Trolls, oh, I see now.

Well, that's obviously not true. With regards to this topic, I want Facebook to do exactly what it is doing, and I don't need to make up details or case law in order to support my point.

It is fantastic that anti-vaxxers are having themselves and their loony conspiracy theories removed from social media, because gullible people are believing those lies, relying on them, and dying because of it.

And when those gullible ones end up in the hospital, doctors have reported that they almost universally regret their decisions not to get vaccinated and understand how profoundly stupid they acted during a pandemic.

So that's why all of this is fantastic for me. I tend to consider people dying for idiotic reasons to be a bad thing.

But don't let me interrupt your imaginary Constitutional ruling.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Well, that's obviously not true. With regards to this topic, I want Facebook to do exactly what it is doing, and I don't need to make up details or case law in order to support my point.

It is fantastic that anti-vaxxers are having themselves and their loony conspiracy theories removed from social media, because gullible people are believing those lies, relying on them, and dying because of it.

And when those gullible ones end up in the hospital, doctors have reported that they almost universally regret their decisions not to get vaccinated and understand how profoundly stupid they acted during a pandemic.

So that's why all of this is fantastic for me. I tend to consider people dying for idiotic reasons to be a bad thing.

But don't let me interrupt your imaginary Constitutional ruling.

We can't get Fauci and the CDC from flip flopping around information. First it was don't wear masks, then yes, wear masks. Facebook censoring Covid may have leaked from Wuhan labs, only for them to stop censoring it when increasing information coming out that it may have come from there.

 

[Yakshi]

We can't get Fauci and the CDC from flip flopping around information. First it was don't wear masks, then yes, wear masks. Facebook censoring Covid may have leaked from Wuhan labs, only for them to stop censoring it when increasing information coming out that it may have come from there

Funny, I know exactly what to do during a pandemic in order to be as safe as possible, and so I exercise that personal responsibility without whining and pointing fingers.

It's unfortunate that this remains a struggle for you.

As for Facebook: they don't have to be even-handed or consistent. They're a private company.

Your choices are obvious. Continuing to use Facebook, or not continuing to use Facebook. Facebook surely doesn't care. Facebook is so flush with members that it can afford to dump some loons.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Funny, I know exactly what to do during a pandemic in order to be as safe as possible, and so I exercise that personal responsibility without whining and pointing fingers.

It's unfortunate that this remains a struggle for you.

As for Facebook: they don't have to be even-handed or consistent. They're a private company.

Your choices are obvious. Continuing to use Facebook, and not continuing to use Facebook. Facebook surely doesn't care.

LMAO!...Oh, so now it's personal responsibility? How convenient. I thought we need Facebook telling us the truth, by removing supposid misinformation. If we can't trust the so called experts ( Fauci/CDC ), that apparently Facebook themselves don't remove as misinformation, why should we trust Facebook at anything?

 

[VySky]

Very Orwellian
——

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If First Amendment rights are being violated, you can prove the government itself is controlling Facebook content by individual accounts. So far no executive orders have been written for that purpose. Without an EO or a law passed by Congress, it is all just talk. I think you do not care about this because Republicans love to project unlikely disasters based on far-right lies.

Facebook is a state actor, acting on behalf of the U.S. government. In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution. Which includes violating the freedom of speech.

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

Several Supreme court decisions, such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision that recognize that corporations are often considered as individuals than just private companies. And are often given constitutional rights such as freedom of speech.

​

 

[Yakshi]

LMAO!...Oh, so now it's personal responsibility? How convenient. I thought we need Facebook telling us the truth, by removing supposid misinformation. If we can't trust the so called experts ( Fauci/CDC ), that apparently Facebook themselves don't remove as misinformation, why should we trust Facebook at anything?

Facebook doesn't care whether you trust or need Facebook.

Every human being with an IQ over 65 knows exactly what to do during a pandemic.

Some decide not to exercise their personal responsibility. Instead, they look for someone to hold their hand. I wish them luck, because lots of conspiracy theorists are more than willing to take them by their hand and skip with them to their coffins.

Anyone who dies from Covid at this point sincerely, deeply wished for it.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Facebook doesn't care whether you trust or need Facebook.

Every human being with an IQ over 65 knows exactly what to do during a pandemic.

Some decide not to exercise their personal responsibility. Instead, they look for someone to hold their hand. I wish them luck, because lots of conspiracy theorists are more than willing to take them by their hand and skip with them to their coffins.

Anyone who dies from Covid at this point sincerely, deeply wished for it.

Probably the only thing we agree on. Facebook, certainly cares if you need Facebook, as they are a business. They need people on Facebook to continue to make money.

 

[Yakshi]

Probably the only thing we agree on. Facebook, certainly cares if you need Facebook, as they are a business. They need people on Facebook to continue to make money.

Clearly, Facebook is showing that they don't need the conspiracy theorists.

Which makes sense. Removing trolls and conspiracy theorists from a social media platform--taking away the negative, in other words--is often a good business decision.

 

[rickc]

Kind of telling when the right complaints about a private company removing lies posted on its web pages.

Why should the distribution of lies be so important to a political party.

 

[element94]

Interesting how Facebook wants to take the credit for doing good but not the credit for doing bad.
While it is no doubt that the vaccine issue is a slippery slope, the President is sworn to protect the Constitution, but at the same time is elected to a government of, by and for the people. Dis/Mis information regarding the Covid-19 vaccine is leading to unnecessary deaths of the people. Still, no one can be forced to get the vaccine, but this anti-science propaganda is extremely sinister, and that is what should be crushed.

 

[danielpalos]

Interesting how Facebook wants to take the credit for doing good but not the credit for doing bad.
While it is no doubt that the vaccine issue is a slippery slope, the President is sworn to protect the Constitution, but at the same time is elected to a government of, by and for the people. Dis/Mis information regarding the Covid-19 vaccine is leading to unnecessary deaths of the people. Still, no one can be forced to get the vaccine, but this anti-science propaganda is extremely sinister, and that is what should be crushed.

Only right-wingers ignore the ethics and morals of Capitalists asking for their multimillion-dollar bonus while collecting corporate welfare. Analogy much?