I have since opened access to otb for all. It’s an entertainment topic.
Why is it that our staunchest constitutionalists don’t understand the constitution?
Really? Alex Jones being banned from social media platforms,and a discussion about whether or not that violates rights, is an entertainment topic?
I politely disagree.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Forcing a private service like Facebook to allow InfoWars content on IT’S OWN PLATFORM would be in breach of FACEBOOK’S First Amendment rights. Don’t like it? Get a really really smart visionary Conservative to start a really popular social media service. They can ban all the libs they want.
Until the fcc regulates these platforms, it’s a private entertainment group issue.
Alex Jones would disagree.
I disagree with the move, but only because it legitimizes his claims of censorship.
He doesn’t need much of an excuse to build a case for outrage. That’s what he does. If it legitimizes it to anyone, it’s his following and so what? They already think the whole “deep state” is down on him.
Does this make sense to you?
In the minds of liberals, its probably racist too.
madasheck:Dude, you have no freedom to say everything HERE that you want.
Does this make sense to you?
I have to admit that I’ve grumbled about it more than once. And I’ve had posts of mine removed recently that I’ve scratched my head about. But it’s not MY show nor is it YOURS. We have to play by their rules.
Millie Weaver?
A “journalist”?
The same Mille Weaver who thinks if a company is publicly traded, that means they’re a public company and therefore are bound by the 1st Amendment?
THAT Millie Weaver?
1st Amendment does not apply here, dude.
Please explain why you think it applies to privately held companies.
Right wingers are easy.
Of course it makes perfect sense.
zantax:You are all over the place my man.
Jones has a right to free speech.
He doesn’t have a right to someone else’s platform.
It really isn’t hard.
I’m right where I have been. The left no longer supports free speech that much. You keep proving it with silly excuses of why it’s OK he was censored.
Your definition of free speech is has shifted to include something that was never intended.
The right to use someone else’s platform.
It is you that has changed what supporting free speech means.
Not me.
Might not be quite that simple.
from Supreme Court | Washington Examiner
While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.
However, the justices’ shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.
Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.
In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.
Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old “Main Street” — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.
So there is precedent for constitutional right to speech being imposed on private business.
And this refers to printed material being distributed. It’s not the same as having podcasts available continually.
Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.
Keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. To put it simply, there have been posts removed here because the mods felt they were objectionable. Same applies to Facebook, YouTube and Spotify. Not to mention you sign an agreement when you come on board any online site telling you to play by their rules. Your speech isn’t being infringed in their view, and according to their rules, they’re not. You may feel differently, but it’s their rules.
I wish a mod would comment on how this discussion relates to this board.
This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.
madasheck: zantax:You are all over the place my man.
Jones has a right to free speech.
He doesn’t have a right to someone else’s platform.
It really isn’t hard.
I’m right where I have been. The left no longer supports free speech that much. You keep proving it with silly excuses of why it’s OK he was censored.
Your definition of free speech is has shifted to include something that was never intended.
The right to use someone else’s platform.
It is you that has changed what supporting free speech means.
Not me.
Might not be quite that simple.
from Supreme Court | Washington Examiner
While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.
However, the justices’ shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.
Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.
In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.
Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old “Main Street” — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.
So there is precedent for constitutional right to speech being imposed on private business.
And this refers to printed material being distributed. It’s not the same as having podcasts available continually.
Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.
Keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. To put it simply, there have been posts removed here because the mods felt they were objectionable. Same applies to Facebook, YouTube and Spotify. Not to mention you sign an agreement when you come on board any online site telling you to play by their rules. Your speech isn’t being infringed in their view, and according to their rules, they’re not. You may feel differently, but it’s their rules.
I wish a mod would comment on how this discussion relates to this board.
This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.
Then go ahead and intentionally post something in violation of the TOS and see where it gets you.
madasheck: zantax:You are all over the place my man.
Jones has a right to free speech.
He doesn’t have a right to someone else’s platform.
It really isn’t hard.
I’m right where I have been. The left no longer supports free speech that much. You keep proving it with silly excuses of why it’s OK he was censored.
Your definition of free speech is has shifted to include something that was never intended.
The right to use someone else’s platform.
It is you that has changed what supporting free speech means.
Not me.
Might not be quite that simple.
from Supreme Court | Washington Examiner
While there may be a free speech issue when a state government bans individuals from using social media, it would seem that there is no such issue when Twitter does the same because the First Amendment applies only to government actors.
However, the justices’ shockingly forward-looking views open a potential game-changing loophole.
Long ago, the high court established that state constitutions may provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to free speech, including the extension of rights to privately-owned spaces.
In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a California Supreme Court decision recognizing that California’s Constitution protected the right of high school students to gather signatures at a privately-owned shopping center for a petition objecting to a United Nations resolution that said Zionism was a form of racism.
Driving the California court’s reasoning was a concern that traditional public squares — the old “Main Street” — were giving way to privately-owned businesses. Consequently, the speech rights that Californians enjoyed in these public Main Street spaces would greatly diminish if a town’s center of gravity shifted to a mall and its owners were able to restrict speech because it’s on private property.
So there is precedent for constitutional right to speech being imposed on private business.
And this refers to printed material being distributed. It’s not the same as having podcasts available continually.
Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.
Keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. To put it simply, there have been posts removed here because the mods felt they were objectionable. Same applies to Facebook, YouTube and Spotify. Not to mention you sign an agreement when you come on board any online site telling you to play by their rules. Your speech isn’t being infringed in their view, and according to their rules, they’re not. You may feel differently, but it’s their rules.
I wish a mod would comment on how this discussion relates to this board.
This forum and YouTube, Twitter or Facebook are not remotely in the same category. By no stretch of the imagination could this be called the new American town square given its tiny audience. As for TOS agreements, you can’t legally sign away your constitutional rights, referring here to state constitutions such as California’s. I showed you the precedent of the court upholding requiring a private business to allow speech that it did not want to and there is no reason at all the same cannot be done to Twitter, Facebook or YouTube using that precedent.
Take it to court.
I wish you luck.
Until then… your argument is nothing more than speculation.
You do not have a Constitutional right to someone else platform.
Nor should you.
1st Amendment does not apply here, dude.
Please explain why you think it applies to privately held companies.
I already linked to it being enforced against a mall. The constitution doesn’t say private companies can’t discriminate either it says the government can’t. So, can they?