Explain what you mean by _his_platform.
YouTube, Twitter… etc are private companies.
They are in no way obligated to host content that they don’t want to host.
They certainly aren’t. Just as this place isn’t.
Are you happy? So you’re a supporter.
What gives anyone the right to a platform?
Jezcoe
August 8, 2018, 12:17am
146
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.
That situation doesn’t exist now.
So it is kind of meaningless to bring up a hypothetical.
zantax
August 8, 2018, 12:17am
147
Ask Pruneyard shopping mall
It looks to me like you’re trying to put someone in a corner. Knock it off. He wasn’t censored, Julius.
Yeah, he won’t let me on, either.
Answer this: How is America less free by Alex Jones getting bumped off of Facebook?
Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the leftists!
COME AND SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISTS!
1 Like
I think that Alex Jones is a sociopath and adds nothing useful to any political conversation
The people who actually fall for his con are weak in the head and are the type that need to hear that someone else is responsible for their crappy lives.
Private entities removing them from their platform is none of my business though.
He still has the cesspool of Infowars to continue his scam of selling health suppliments to rubes.
Probably True, I don’t know. Never liked him. But, I support free speech because the vast majority of people can see BS.
Liberals once believed in the people… Perhaps the Lincoln quote about fooling the people, I’m sure you never heard…
You’re just squawking for nothing. If you’re so ticked, go make a sign and demostrate somewhere.
1 Like
Maybe this will make you feel better (a little language thing there at the end).
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.
What? And have no one see it because three private businesses refuse to give my podcast a platform?
NO THANKS IVAN
1 Like
Large corporations censoring the people and libs love it…Amazing!
What the hell are libs going to do? Rarely did I see a conservative (old timey or new) reference Infowars. It was always libs.
Libs … do you feel like you lost some little bit of joy?
FYI, besides Apple, Facebook, Spotify and YouTube have also removed him. You sign agreements when join these places and they have the right to pull your stuff.They rarely do it if you look at the wide range of stuff that’s on these places.
Yeah, you two go ahead and try and blame liberals. No one else is.
