http s://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?noredirect=on
Stop
1 Like
Keep thumping your chest ya big dum-dum, it just makes you look worse.
http s://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court-rules-the-government-cant-control-private-speech/
"The Supreme Court has once again emphasized that the protection of property rights is an essential protection for a free society. As the Supreme Court explained, this “critical boundary … protects a robust sphere of individual liberty.”
Private property owners can create places for public gathering and speech, without forfeiting either property rights or speech rights. The Supreme Court pointed to several traditional examples, such as a community bulletin board at a grocery store or a comedy club holding an open-mic night. Just because private property is opened up for speech does not mean that the property owner has to allow everyone access. Otherwise, “Private property owners … would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether.”
The Supreme Court also followed PLF’s lead and emphatically rejected the argument that “being heavily regulated makes you a state actor.” This argument is “entirely circular and would significantly endanger individual liberty and private enterprise.” Following this logic, “a large swath of private entities in America would suddenly be turned into state actors and be subject to a variety of constitutional constraints on their activities.”"
No, for real, keep missing the point and I’m sure more of your echo chamber buddies will show up to defend you. The 1st Ammendment does NOT apply to private platforms.
2 Likes
First of all that ruling doesn’t have anything to do with your initial claim. Additionally I have already acknowledged what you quoted there, and further added there are many more cases coming up through the courts that could end up contesting that particular ruling.
They are not ever going to force a private company to be a platform for hate speech. And that court case looks to me to be exactly related to what is being discussed unlike your patent (i.e. government) court case.
They have forced the private twitter account of the US President to unblock people on free speech grounds. Never say never.
US President = government - that is where your first amendment applies
2 Likes
It is his private account. Becoming president does not automatically make all his possessions part of the government.
2 Likes
He uses that to discuss politics and it does not matter if it is a ‘private’ account there is no such thing in his case.
2 Likes
I’m sure he also discusses politics on the telephone, however all of his phone conversations are not uploaded for public consumption.
2 Likes
So you think twitter that everyone can see is the same as a phone call which only certain people are privy to.
Just tell your mom to turn on the profanity filter next time she drops off your tendies.
1 Like
Ah, but once he started blocking people he only made certain people privy to his twitter posts. Until a court forced him to make it public. The point is, his own private twitter account was forced to be a public utility. So don’t count on social media platforms being allowed to continue restricting certain kinds of speech that they don’t like.
1 Like
Yawn, people say so called bad things on the internet all the time…
Have you seen Dave Chappelle’s new “sticks and stones” routine ?
Your government/law makers make very very sure they do not infringe on the abilities of private companies to earn profits. IT will not happen.
1 Like
This is a quality OP troll
2 Likes
Antitrust legislation does exactly that and it happens often enough.
Because antitrust legislation is aimed at excess profit not the ability to make a profit.
Right, because court packing while pushing a Federalist regime, with giant military industrial complex, and infrastructure bigger than comprehension is going to protect YOUR freedoms? Or save YOU money? Lol, just lawl… Oligarch is as does by definition.
Sincerely, cow from midwest mulgore.
Social media platforms are among the most profitable companies, and they have positioned themselves at the new public square. Because of that they enjoy many legal protections, however there are also obligations they are required to meet that they are not currently.
Omg, how can you be so for racism. It does not benefit the public, it does not benefit society, it does not benefit the company to be a platform for racism.
2 Likes