Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

Wordpress banned Chateau Heartiste

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,996
Reaction score
5,054
I may not agree with what they say, but I will fight for their right to say it.

Obviously not to include threats and such.....
Yes and do you believe they have a right to say it on your private platform?
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,996
Reaction score
5,054
Their right supercedes my ownership if that is the modern day equivalent of the sidewalk. According to the SCOTUS anyways. The price of being a global corporation with massive reach.

Moreover they are a corporation behaving as a Super PAC, and thus are breaking the law.
Okay, well in that case we disagree. Although the SCOTUS didn't rule that the internet is a sidewalk, just that a sidewalk in a company town is public (per you). There would have to be another case to expand that. My personal opinion is that a social media network or blogging site is no more public than a newspaper or TV station. That is, none of these entities are obligated to broadcast a message.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
Social media today is the equivalent to that sidewalk.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though thesidewalk was part of a privately owned company town.
Marsh v. Alabama was cited in the case of Cyber Promotions v. America Online in 1998. Where AOL was blocking mass e-mails by Cyber Promotions to AOL clients. The courts ruled, and the USSC let stand, that freedom of speech did not apply since terms of use provisions were in place, therefor it could not be considered a true public space, in addition, since internet access is not the only method of reaching potential clients. This was a summary dismissal.

In the case of Marsh v. Alabama... the city is question was a 'public' entity, and government can not limit freedom of expression since it was not true private property.

Unless the government decides that the internet declares easement rights, it is considered a private platform.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
A couple of important points to clarify here.

1. Terms of use are NOT in place which outline the right to eliminate content from a political ideology, so that doesn't apply here.
I'm assuming you are referring to WordPress. If you are here is an excerpt from their terms of service:

13. Termination
We may terminate your access to all or any part of our Services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. We have the right (though not the obligation) to, in our sole discretion, (i) reclaim your username or website’s URL due to prolonged inactivity, (ii) refuse or remove any content that, in our reasonable opinion, violates any Automattic policy or is in any way harmful or objectionable, or (iii) terminate or deny access to and use of any of our Services to any individual or entity for any reason. We will have no obligation to provide a refund of any amounts previously paid.

In ordinary English, they can remove anything they want, and the only test is their opinion that it is objectionable. "Automattic" is just their DMCA service for copy-write material. So WordPress can remove anything they want without notice, and Automattic can remove any content which violates DMCA.

2. For the AOL case it isn't that the internet wasn't the only way, it is that AOL is not the only way.
Cyber Promotions argued that access to millions of people make the Internet a critical pathway of communicative and that the defendant had exclusive control over this channel of information and ideas from the Internet to its clients The plaintiff's argument was that it is the Internet itself which is a "critical pathway of communication" while simultaneously arguing that it is the channel from the Internet to to clients which is the critical pathway. The court rejected this argument and summarily dismissed this case. The court ruled that while the Internet may be a critical pathway of communication. The defendant never sought to control the exchange of ideas and communications over the Internet itself. The defendant controlled its own channel leading to the Internet in order protect its own private property, reputation and subscribers which is their right to do, since the Supreme Court has CONSISTENTLY ruled that the guarantees of free speech ... guard only against encroachment by the government and not shield against merely private conduct.

The ruling was very broad and not limited only to AOL.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
I was referring more to Twitter and such since they are true monopolies in that sense.

Even so, it does not stop the fact that these are corporations acting as super PACS unlawfully and thus should be treated and regulated as such.

When a corporation denies service based upon a political ideology, then in essence they are making donations to other ideologies. This is by definition a super PAC.
I hope what you are learning from this is that reality is what it is. Our laws protect privately owned companies from being compelled into speech they do not agree with... that is a fact. The laws will not change because these companies have bought and paid for our politicians. The only solution for this is for the government to take control of the internet. Government control of any media is bad.

Compelling speech is the first step towards socialism. Socialism is bad.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
I had hoped you would learn that a "privately" owned corporation engaging in activities reserved specifically for a single type of organization is illegal, and thus they have EARNED the regulation......and are not truly corporations.

Unfortunately all you seem able to do is ignore that fact and do the NPC chant of "Government is bad", when nobody is asking for "increased government".
You are asking for increased government... you are asking that government force privately owned companies to allow people they disagree with to freely express opinions on platforms they own. The argument was made in courts that social media and on-line content service providers dominate the internet to such an extent that they are a defacto public space... ALL these arguements have been rejected in summary decisions and NONE have risen above the district court level, ALL have NOT been reviewed in circuit courts, much less Federal Courts, therefor no where near a judicial review by the USSC.

I am not ignoring FACTS... I am accepting reality. These platforms that are regulating what people can post on their websites is NOT illegal. What you are arguing is that is SHOULD be illegal... Fine... try and get the laws changed... good luck with hitting your head against a brick wall.

A conservative USSC has ruled that organizations and companies are entitled to individual free speech rights (See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and that 'right' extends to political contributions. Conservatives that have blurred the lines between what can be legally done with Super PACs.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
906
You are changing the subject. If the problem is that large businesses have formed monopolies I agree.. and the answer is to break them up.

Again... you are changing the subject. The problem is does government have the right to COMPEL speech. Not compete in a market of ideas. People have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to be profitable in their speech and they certainly do not have the right to require people listen or read them.

This is a completely different subject... This isn't about free speech, it's about companies securing a monopoly. Microsoft should be broken up, as should Amazon, Google.... and a number of organizations, especially National Banks.

They control markets because many of our politicians are bought and paid for. We could and should break them up.

Okay... now we are back to it social media providers are content producers or not. They are not, and they have never claimed to be. They are publishers and since the do not make money directly with published content, then they can not be held liable for what shows up on their platform... We could change the law making them liable, but that would only mean more content would be screened out because then they would be fiscally responsible for what appears on their platform.


Yes, but to be more correct they reserve the right to take control and ownership over your content unless you post that you have copyrights to what you put out. If you do not copyright your content, anyone can take it... all FB says is that none of their users can take ownership of content without their approval. If you post a song on FB and it isn't protected, and another user takes it and starts making money from it, Facebook can sue them because not only do you have to agree that un-copyrighted material you post belongs to them, but if you are a viewer then you also yield ownership rights to FB.

You have the right to free speech. Companies have the right to deny you service provided you are not violating any other laws. For example, a restaurant can enforce a dress code: they can not deny service to minorities. If Congress changes the laws so that it is illegal to deny terms of service based on anything... well fine... let's debate this and see if it has broad support. The US Constitution gives you the right to free speech... the Constitution does not guarantee the right to wide distribution of speech.

The US Constitution does not guarantee that you will be successful in business only that you are free to pursue happiness. When you are in business there are always environmental changes that you have no control over that will 'ruin' you. If, for example, you have a car wash place... then the city closes your street for three months for road repairs, you are screwed. I've seen things like this happen all the time... it is the nature of business.

It might be wrong, but it is their right to do this. If their advertisers are telling them that they do not want their products marketed side by side with content that their customers do not approve of... well.... then it is a business decision. Companies have the right to protect their brand... if in the process of protecting 'their brand' they end up losing content and viewers... well then they will suffer the consequences of their actions.

This is a different topic and really this is an old debate that actually goes back to the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th century where people were worried that the printing press would have an undo influence on the masses, where a publisher of a printing press who be able to exercise undo influence on the masses. Then radio... then TV... now the internet. But people always find a way to get their points across. When conservatives felt their voices were not heard on TV... they went to AM Radio, eventually an entire TV cable station was dedicated only to conservative content (FOX)... if there is a demand for content, people will find a way to get it... unless the government mucks things up and tries to control the market of ideas.

You are mixing Constitutional protections with with ideas that are not an enumerated right. It is illegal to discriminate on race, religion, and the courts have ruled discrimination against sexual orientation, in certain instances can also be illegal. Now if the government steps in and compels equal access for political and social opinions, well okay... change the law. But if we do that you would be opening up a whole can of worms that I'm not sure many people would like. Anytime the government steps in and tries to control anything it gets fvcked up. Let the free market work.

SJWs and political correctness have been around for centuries. This is not a new phenomenon. People will always use media in an attempt to shape a narrative or promote a political position... and every time there is a new 'technology' be it the printing press... radio... TV.... now the internet, people have always been fearful of the results. New media ALWAYS brings about change... it is the natural order of things. The only time this is a problem is when government attempts to control this, dictating content. If we allow Government to order private companies and individuals what the MUST allow... then where does it end?
You have a point to some degree but then there is the realistic implementation of your points and then there is the idealistic implementation. In the idealistic implementation, you say they don't have to give you a platform. However, there is then the realistic implementation, which says they own the social media space at this point and if you want to reach literally billions of people, you need to have their consent to use their tool. It's not a matter of whether or not you can profit from your speech, it's being allowed to say it. Being censored off of their platform severely limits your ability to make your speech known. It would be like being banned from using the Gutenberg press at the time. Yes, you can publish your materials but your ability to do so is severely hampered by not having access to the press and having to do it by hand. Either the government supports and accepts the citizen's rights to free speech or they don't. Allowing companies that have the market cornered on digital speech to make arbitrary calls, from moment to moment, about what is acceptable speech is infringing on those rights.

I'll say it again, you can't protect ideas without protecting all forms of speech, at least those that don't encourage illegal behaviors. If you allow people or companies to censor or discriminate based on an idea, then all forms of discrimination are on the table. If I, as the government, allow a company to censor based on a political idea, then allowing for them to discriminate on a value set, say religion, is on the table. So is your race, color, creed or sexual orientation. You can't allow freedom of association in one instance and then deny it in other instances, you have to be even handed in how you apply your logic.

Facebook and others in this genre of business have made the claim that they are simply a platform in court. This allows them protection from being sued for various things that are posted on their platform. Whether it is slander, copyright issues or some of type of legal matter, the platform argument can work in their favor to protect them against damages. However, now, in public, they claim to want to censor based on mostly, political or social ideas that the SWJs find abhorrent. Of course, the SJWs are essentially third wave feminists or cucks who support them and their sense of fairness, decency and morals are unbelievably skewed towards fascism and communism but many people have difficulty seeing this for some reason. Social media platforms can't have it both ways, either they are a platform, agnostic of ideas, thoughts or content posted or they are a publisher, who gets to use that defense to censor people and ideas that they do not find worthy of their platform or audience/users. If you allow them to use the platform defense in court, then that's the label that they are stuck with and can't censor people.

You are right, SJWs have been around for centuries and the pendulum swings back and forth. This is though, a fairly skewed swing for the pendulum this time though. We have not seen many times in history where the pendulum went to this kind of extreme and the few times that it does, empires fall. What we are witnessing, unless drastic measures are taken, is the fall of the west. The last time we saw this type of extreme move towards one end or the other, I daresay, led to the dark ages. Science, medical and logic deniers beware, we are in dangerous times.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
906
You are asking for increased government... you are asking that government force privately owned companies to allow people they disagree with to freely express opinions on platforms they own. The argument was made in courts that social media and on-line content service providers dominate the internet to such an extent that they are a defacto public space... ALL these arguements have been rejected in summary decisions and NONE have risen above the district court level, ALL have NOT been reviewed in circuit courts, much less Federal Courts, therefor no where near a judicial review by the USSC.

I am not ignoring FACTS... I am accepting reality. These platforms that are regulating what people can post on their websites is NOT illegal. What you are arguing is that is SHOULD be illegal... Fine... try and get the laws changed... good luck with hitting your head against a brick wall.

A conservative USSC has ruled that organizations and companies are entitled to individual free speech rights (See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) and that 'right' extends to political contributions. Conservatives that have blurred the lines between what can be legally done with Super PACs.
This is where you are wrong. Even if you want to set aside the notion that they are the de facto digital space for free speech, they themselves claim that they are merely a platform in court, a humble purveyor of digital content, agnostic of a judgement on that content. They have used that defense in a number of court cases and have been successful in using that defense.

However, now in public, they claim to be willing and able to censor people based on ideas that mostly lefties find abhorrent. They have to be held to account, either they are a publisher or they are a platform. You can't use one defense in court and them claim to be something else in public. If they want to be a publisher, then those court rulings that they won based on the platform argument should be vacated and they should be successfully sued for allowing whatever content that was deemed in appropriate on their tool. You can't have it both ways.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
906
How I look at it is a condition of realities. A person can have a different reality than mine and I can just acknowledge it's different and then just ignore it.
So what is the nature of a government that it has to squelch other realities just because they exist? What motives are they withholding? We can talk about diversity but in fact it cannot be allowed to exist according to the governments. This make me think of Thomas Jefferson and his writings on government.
Jefferson was right all along. A powerful government can't and won't let thoughts other than their own exist. A government's "thought's" are created by who gets voted in. It is not true cultural evolution as masses can be swayed and have forgotten that they are individuals with their own reality.

Would censorship need to exist if those doing it were free thinking and on the up & up? No. Censorship is needed when the prevailing message is an aberration to the natural inclinations of human beings.
+1 on this, great last couple of sentences. This sums up the entire issue, no more needs to be said. Now it remains to be seen what the logical people left in this society will do to ensure that this type of logic stays at the forefront of our decision making situations.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
Let me make it exceedingly simple for you.

This is a corporation engaging in activity reserved for Super PACs. That is ILLEGAL.
Yes.... you need to make it simple for me, because I obviously do not know what I'm talking about. Please explain how a social media platform is a Super PAC?

Because in my simple mind, I always believed a at a Super PAC was a tax exempt 527 organization that is formed to spend money on issues and they are free to do whatever the fvck they want provided they do not 'coordinate' with any one campaign or actually donate money to a particular political campaign. Individuals can contribute whatever the fvck they want into these organizations, means "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" (which ironically all their claims were proven to be fabrications) only has to have 4 contributor funding millions. Or on the other side Soros can put over $20 million of his own money supporting Super PACS supporting liberal causes. The only time Super PACs run at odds with the FEC is when there is evidence of direct coordination or funding with campaigns.... which is really hard to prove.

The FEC regulates CAMPAIGN finance.... not free speech... and the REASON why the lines are blurred and it is difficult to prove is because the USSC has RULED that you can not limit what people put into Super PACs because spending money is 'free speech' and organizations have individual rights.

I agree that Corporations operating as a 527 tax exempt organization as a Super PAC could be illegal. But PLEASE explain to me why you believe that social media platforms are behaving like a Super PAC? They are not tax exempt... they do not take donations form private individuals, They do not promote issues, they do not limit political speech, the top two most popular Twitter accounts of political people are President Obama and President Trump, and Twitter has NEVER limited or deleted anything either man has ever posted. As far as I know, no politician of either party has been banned from any social media platform for expressing a political opinion that does not violate the terms of use.

But let's say you are right, and they are acting like Super PACS, they can not violate any campaign finance laws if they are not taking donations. So unless there is evidence they are doing this, then the FEC has no jurisdiction. But lets say they are, and they are taking donations, and they ARE LEGALLY structured as a Super PAC... even then they are STILL allowed to promote whatever the fvck they want... and thus can limit what they do not want to promote. And there is no obligation that they have to be truthful... in fact if truth was a requirement in political advertising, then just about every single ad ever run in the USA would be illegal.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
This is where you are wrong. Even if you want to set aside the notion that they are the de facto digital space for free speech, they themselves claim that they are merely a platform in court, a humble purveyor of digital content, agnostic of a judgement on that content. They have used that defense in a number of court cases and have been successful in using that defense.
I am sorry... you are wrong. They claim they are a platform... they have never claimed that they are 'agnostic of judgement'. In fact they reserve the right to regulate content IAW their terms of use. It does not have to be either or...

You can say that you are not responsible for what people post, and at the same time say what people can or can not post.... it's not either or. They are not responsible for anything posted on their website that does not violate their terms of use.

You as a property owner can say it's okay for people to put up campaign signs in your yard, but you as a property owner can decide for yourself what you will allow to stay, as long as you make it clear up front what you WILL NOT allow.... and if you tell people UP FRONT, that you reserve the right to take down whatever you want for any reason... it is YOUR RIGHT to do this.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
906
I am sorry... you are wrong. They claim they are a platform... they have never claimed that they are 'agnostic of judgement'. In fact they reserve the right to regulate content IAW their terms of use. It does not have to be either or...

You can say that you are not responsible for what people post, and at the same time say what people can or can not post.... it's not either or. They are not responsible for anything posted on their website that does not violate their terms of use.

You as a property owner can say it's okay for people to put up campaign signs in your yard, but you as a property owner can decide for yourself what you will allow to stay, as long as you make it clear up front what you WILL NOT allow.... and if you tell people UP FRONT, that you reserve the right to take down whatever you want for any reason... it is YOUR RIGHT to do this.
Sorry, wrong but don't take it from me:

“It just strikes me as fundamentally problematic,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. “On one hand, you’re trying to argue you’re this publisher making editorial judgments. But then they turn around and claim they are protected under [Section 230] because they are not publishers.”

Eric Goldman, a Santa Clara University law professor, said it was frustrating to see Facebook publicly deny that it was a publisher in some contexts but then claim it as a defense in court.

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Packingham was right. “Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” reads Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion. “Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”

The decision, Justice Kennedy acknowledges, is “one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern internet.” It's a relationship that is being consistently tested, as people not only increasingly rely on social media as a core communication channel but also as courts begin using the things they say and do online against them. Packingham v. North Carolina, at least, establishes that the government can't just uniformly bar people from using expansive chunks of the internet.

"The Supreme Court appropriately understood the importance of the internet to the way politics and free expression occur right now," says Neil Richards, a professor at Washington University Law School, who specializes in First Amendment law. "We cannot have a functioning First Amendment that doesn't take First Amendment activity in a digital context into account."

Social media and the platform that can be used to reach massive amounts of people, is not the same as a political sign in your yard, you're deflecting and using straw man arguments. But again, don't take it from me, take it from noted attorneys and the supreme court.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
When a corporation chooses to provide a service to only specific parties then they are in effect making donations to those campaigns (which is illegal) No different than if it was a monetary donation.
I am not following you at all... I do not see how consideration for goods or services received in a private commercial exchange could ever legally be argued as a contribution. But hey... if someone brings a lawsuit then the courts can decide, maybe you could sue and see where it goes.

I'm really not sure why you are upset about this... every-time a company engaging in SJW bvllsh!t it ends up biting them in the @ss. I remember the first time something like this happened, it was back in the 90s, when some vendor in NYC decided he didn't want to sell Snapple because they advertised on Rush Limbaugh. A month later, people stopped buying from him and he stopped doing that. Most recently there was a coffee shop that decided they were going to start charging a 'man tax' for coffee because of the mythical 'pay gap'... now they are out of business https://pluralist.com/handsome-her-cafe-man-tax-closes/ Notice that the owners STILL do not blame themselves for this silliness, it is the fault of toxic masculinity... but what else would you expect from women?

Let stupid people be stupid and suffer the consequences of their actions. If WordPress or anyone else wants to kiss the @sses of SJWs fine... let them... they will find themselves with competition and they will only host content that no one whats to see with anyone with an open mind will gravitate towards platforms that do not do this.

I am only telling you like it is... I am not trying to justify the actions of individual companies. IMO I actually believe that it does not make good business sense to intentionally limit your client base.

We are talking about LAW, and the LAW says that it is not illegal to deny service for political opinion. You may not like it but that is a fact. The Civil Rights law only protects from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, and in some cases disability. Political affiliation is not a protected class. If you decide as a business owner that you do not want to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, you do not have to. If you are a Jewish baker, you can not be forced to make a Nazi cake with a picture of Hitler on it. But you can not refuse to make a cake for a mixed marriage because you think mixing of the the races is bad... THAT is illegal.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that Packingham was right. “Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” reads Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion. “Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”
The Packingham case has nothing to do with this content. It is that the law limited access this is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Anyone should be free to do anything they want on social media provided they do not violate the terms of service. This was not a lawsuit against Facebook, it was a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina.... As I stated before, free speech rights can not be limited by government, the State violated the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiff.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
906
The Packingham case has nothing to do with this content. It is that the law limited access this is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Anyone should be free to do anything they want on social media provided they do not violate the terms of service. This was not a lawsuit against Facebook, it was a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina.... As I stated before, free speech rights can not be limited by government, the State violated the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment rights of the plaintiff.
Doesn't hold weight, they reference the First Amendment in their decision and being able to use social media. And again, you neglected to mention that they claim in public to be a platform in public and in court they hide behind publishing laws. You can't have it both ways. I included references to other cases as well, not just that particular case.

Arguing a point on semantics is not arguing a point. They have a defacto stranglehold on the digital public platform, whether you choose to admit it or not. If you're going to argue they are a private company and can do what they want, then other private companies can discriminate as they see fit. Either there is freedom of association or there isn't, you can't pick and choose. If you're going to argue they are a platform and not subject to publishing responsibilities or vice versa, then they can't use those arguments in court that go to the opposite of what they claim in public.

If all voices cannot be heard when a corporation of global status has a stranglehold on a market where public opinions are shared and conversations are encouraged, they have a monopoly and should be broken up.
 
Last edited:

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,996
Reaction score
5,054
Random question...Is CH's real name James C. Weidmann? That's what came up when I was Googling the site.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
Donating money is a contribution.

Donating services is also a contribution.

Twitter, facebook, and other free social media are in effect donating services.
Ah... okay now I see where you are going with this. Thank you.

Allowing someone to express an opinion on a media platform is a defacto contribution. I agree.... but that does not mean you have the right to dictate to the platform, which is a company, which the USSC says are entitled to constitutional rights, what they have to allow. You can not do this anymore than you can insist that the Koch Brothers have to 'contribute' just as much money to Democrats as Republicans, because it is 'fair'. On the other extreme, you can not dictate that George Soros contribute equally to Republicans or Democrats.

Now if you want to make the case that large media platforms have a defacto monopoly on the internet... well okay... start a campaign... raise money and file a lawsuit. But I do not believe that large social media platforms should be forced to compel speech they believe runs counter to what they consider a good business practice. They should be broken up. The problem isn't 'free speech' the problem is we have allowed monopolies to form.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
Doesn't hold weight, they reference the First Amendment in their decision and being able to use social media.
The question to the court was that law is permissible under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a question of ACCESS not content. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to SPEECH, and ACCESS to free speech. The court was very clear that they were NOT making a judgment on content, only if an individual has the right to access, and if the State has the right to limit access based on a past conviction, of if this was a violation of the equal protection clause. States do have the right to limit constitutional rights of convicted felons... many State do not allow convicted felons to vote, or own handguns. These apparent violations of constitutional rights PASS judicial review because the courts, in the past, did not see these limits as violations of the 14th amendment.

And again, you neglected to mention that they claim in public to be a platform in public and in court they hide behind publishing laws. You can't have it both ways. I included references to other cases as well, not just that particular case.
I did not mention it because it is not relevant. No one is denying that people should have ACCESS to information available on a public social media platform. The plaintiff in this case was not suing to be allowed to post whatever he wanted, he sued because he was denied access. This is a 1st amendment question but not on speech, but on access.

Arguing a point on semantics is not arguing a point. They have a defacto stranglehold on the digital public platform, whether you choose to admit it or not.
I do not think I am arguing semantics and I intentionally have not challenged the notion of that social media companies do not have a 'stranglehold', I prefer the legal term 'monopoly' (but I suppose that is semantics as well, sorry). Maybe they do? But so far the courts have not ruled in that way, and if it is determined they do indeed have a monopoly to solution is to break them up to open competition for other platforms.

If you're going to argue they are a private company and can do what they want, then other private companies can discriminate as they see fit.
Well in truth I am not arguing that point I take it as a fact in evidence. They are a private company and they can do what ever they want provided they are not violating laws. They can not LEGALLY discriminate against classes of people identified in Civil Rights Law... political opinion is not a protected class. If you want to make the argument they should be... well then take it to court... let the judges decide.

Either there is freedom of association or there isn't, you can't pick and choose.
Your freedom of association is not dictated by a social media platform. You are free to believe and say whatever you like in a PUBLIC forum. You are arguing that social media is a defacto public forum.... again.... take it to court and let the courts decide. So far they have been reluctant to rule on this, or better yet let congress start the process of amending the Constitution to clearly define the cyberspace as a public forum. Then it will not be up to the courts. I really don't think Facebook or any other social media platform would seriously object to this, because then they would be relieved of any responsibility. If some SJW group starts hamming them with boycott threats, they can just turn to the and say "Sorry, it's the law... call you congressional representative."

If you're going to argue they are a platform and not subject to publishing responsibilities or vice versa, then they can't use those arguments in court that go to the opposite of what they claim in public.
Well... I have never argued that they are 'publishers' in fact neither have they. They claim they are 'newspaper boys' delivering a 'paper' or a 'print shop' printing what is delivered to them. They don't publish anything, they allow a platform that is it.

If all voices cannot be heard when a corporation of global status has a stranglehold on a market where public opinions are shared and conversations are encouraged, they have a monopoly and should be broken up.
Well now on this we agree.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
906
The question to the court was that law is permissible under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a question of ACCESS not content. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to SPEECH, and ACCESS to free speech. The court was very clear that they were NOT making a judgment on content, only if an individual has the right to access, and if the State has the right to limit access based on a past conviction, of if this was a violation of the equal protection clause. States do have the right to limit constitutional rights of convicted felons... many State do not allow convicted felons to vote, or own handguns. These apparent violations of constitutional rights PASS judicial review because the courts, in the past, did not see these limits as violations of the 14th amendment.

I did not mention it because it is not relevant. No one is denying that people should have ACCESS to information available on a public social media platform. The plaintiff in this case was not suing to be allowed to post whatever he wanted, he sued because he was denied access. This is a 1st amendment question but not on speech, but on access.

I do not think I am arguing semantics and I intentionally have not challenged the notion of that social media companies do not have a 'stranglehold', I prefer the legal term 'monopoly' (but I suppose that is semantics as well, sorry). Maybe they do? But so far the courts have not ruled in that way, and if it is determined they do indeed have a monopoly to solution is to break them up to open competition for other platforms.

Well in truth I am not arguing that point I take it as a fact in evidence. They are a private company and they can do what ever they want provided they are not violating laws. They can not LEGALLY discriminate against classes of people identified in Civil Rights Law... political opinion is not a protected class. If you want to make the argument they should be... well then take it to court... let the judges decide.

Your freedom of association is not dictated by a social media platform. You are free to believe and say whatever you like in a PUBLIC forum. You are arguing that social media is a defacto public forum.... again.... take it to court and let the courts decide. So far they have been reluctant to rule on this, or better yet let congress start the process of amending the Constitution to clearly define the cyberspace as a public forum. Then it will not be up to the courts. I really don't think Facebook or any other social media platform would seriously object to this, because then they would be relieved of any responsibility. If some SJW group starts hamming them with boycott threats, they can just turn to the and say "Sorry, it's the law... call you congressional representative."

Well... I have never argued that they are 'publishers' in fact neither have they. They claim they are 'newspaper boys' delivering a 'paper' or a 'print shop' printing what is delivered to them. They don't publish anything, they allow a platform that is it.

Well now on this we agree.
Most of your post is simply splitting hairs. Thank you, it's on first amendment, whether it is speech or access matters not, it is still a first amendment issue.

The heart of the matter is allowing people to be heard. If you agree it's a monopoly and should be broken up, then you have to follow that out to it's logical conclusion, which is they are not allowed to block people based on their political ideologies. While political affiliation is not a protected class as stipulated by other groups, this is yet another strawman argument. Either you support groups, whatever their grouping or labeling is, not being discriminated against or you don't.

That's the spirit of these laws, to ensure that someone who identifies as liberal, conservative, black, white, latino, lgbtxyz or whatever, can't be discriminated against. So with your logic, I simply relabel a group as something else and I can discriminate against them, since it isn't specifically referred to by law. Again, you have to be even in the application of your logic. If you allow discrimination against one group, even if not technically identified by law at the moment, you logically, ethically and morally have to allow discrimination against any group. You can't pick and play favorites.

Facebook has argued that they are merely a platform in public and use publisher's laws to protect them in court. So they are playing both sides of the fence. In public, they are agnostic (or so they claim) and in court they use publisher laws that support them to win their case. In truth, they are run by a particular political persuasion masquerading as a "social" media platform, when they only allow voices that are inside their echo chamber. However, they built their business and fortune by allowing all to have a say, now they want to change all the rules after they have all the control.

What's really happening, quite honestly, is that this is a battle for the soul of this country. Are we going to allow liberals, communists, fascists, SJWs to dictate common sense, logic, fairness and equality or are we going to let western men decide what the future will look like. Will western men take the mantle and the inheritance that has been bequeathed to them by their forefathers or will they shrink from the battle, too afraid to be branded a bigot, homophobe, misogynist or other SJW label used to shut people and conversations down?

These communists have been busy at all levels, social, educational and government. They have destroyed generations of western men and turned them into soy boys, too afraid to be labeled toxic or some other bullsh*t feminist label. Make no mistake though, if western men lose this battle, the west will fall and devolve back into the dark ages, deluged by all the nonsense.
 

RangerMIke

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
7,440
Location
USA, Louisiana
This is my point though.....

They are a company, acting as a Super PAC in that they are essentially donating infinite amounts to parties and actually even campaigns.

This matters because super PACS do not have the same rights as individuals.
And the USSC has already ruled that corporations and PACS are entitled to constitutional rights. Now I personally disagree with this decision but it is what it is. Like it or not, this is what the courts have given us. Now if we Americans do not like this, then the solution is to amend the Constitution.

If it were up to me the the 28th Amendment would read:
1. The rights of citizens of the United States, guaranteed in the original Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights and can not be inferred or interpreted as collective rights.

2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


This actually fixes a lot of judicial stupidity namely that corporations are people, and the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a right guaranteed under the condition of membership in a militia.
 
Top