Recently here on SDA, an interview with Brendan O’Neill was published. About halfway through O’Neill touched upon the landmark US Supreme Court case of Marsh v. Alabama.
Expect this case to come up again in 2019 when Facebook, Google, and Twitter continue to silence the voices of conservatives. More on the comparison can be found here.
Yes, well. In the interim the courts have invariably privileged the alleged free speech rights of pornographers and communist propagandists over the sacred right of good, decent people to speak the truth.
You have no business bringing social media to heel. It’s their property and Marsha vs Blackburn should be overturned.
Wow, you really ARE Justin-stupid.
So how is this different from forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings again?
This has nothing to do with trespassing laws, at a bare minimum, these people were invited and even wooed onto these websites. There is a customer/business relationship going on here, people pay for a product they both want and use but pay by offering up their private details instead of their cash. The tech giants then turn that gained private customer info into billions of billions of dollars.
To my mind, this bigoted and targeted censorship practiced by the Web Monsters would best be handled by reformed federal ‘Refusal of Service’ laws. As a matter of fact, I believe that what these tech companies are doing is already clearly illegal in some states like California. Trump just needs to add ‘political ideology’ to the existing federal list of protected groups. Hell, he could tweak the Dems even further by claiming to do it in the name of protecting diversity.
Also, we need to call out the partisan MSM for their complicity in this, for actually cheering on this denial of free speech for roughly half of all Americans. They are part of this cabal and their partisan bigotries deviously include a hateful attitude towards anything conservative. They are without question an enemy to all of the people of the free world.
IOW this is your version of ‘forcing bakers to serve gay weddings’.
When Twitter/Facebook/etc etc allowed public entities such as governments/emergency services/etc to publish communications, policies, rules and procedures on their platforms, they became public use.
Can they ban someone access to those services now? I don’t think so.
“When Twitter/Facebook/etc etc allowed public entities such as governments/emergency services/etc to publish communications, policies, rules and procedures on their platforms, they became public use.”
No they didn’t. At all. That’s not remotely how it works.
All these tech companies have become is the soap box the speaker steps on. They have not rights to protect anyone from anything. They claim to fame is that they spent/spend a ridiculous amount of money to build a soap box.
Oh by the way, it the old days, we used to just point and laugh at the moron and his stupid views shouted from said soapbox.
Might as well repeal the First Amendment and then do as you please.
(When you can’t beat ’em, regulate ’em.)
Do I have the First Amendment right to NOT bake a cake for … the gays? Or anyone else I choose ?
Up until the midterm elections were over I was spammed daily and regularly by You Tube with every kind of lefty propaganda disguised as a “recommendation”. I called them out on it regularly and they never gave up. All of a sudden the election was over and the YT spam dried up. Must have been just a coincidence.
Trudeau and the Libranos are working with these “unbaised” social media giants to sway the 2019 elections, by censoring speech Trudeau disagrees with. Don’t know what can be done, other than try and get the word out and expose them for what they are.
I think that before the heavy hand of government is called in there’s a step that would satisfy most people : social media companies should have clear rules that are fairly and consistently applied to all users regardless of politics, race, sex, gender, etc.
It’s the double standard that has to go.
the censorshit engged by the media big boyz mirrors the fact it takes only skeleton crew to keep things hoity toity
following an invasion & takeover..
see ‘WW II occupied Fwance’ for an example.
They are exercising editorial control. They are publishers now. Full stop. Nothing more is needed, they have already hoist themselves by their own petards.
All that needs to be done is someone takes one of the publishers to court, over something they DIDN’T take down. They have already dug their own graves, it’s just no one has pushed them in yet.
That’s not how the First Amendment works. Or editorial control for that matter.