Yes, it’s materially the same, speech protections aren’t reliant on the form the speech is in.
No, it’s not since leaflets can be tossed in the garbage and are in essence dead. Podcasts and webpage have a longer life. He still has the right to go write a book and publish his garbage in print.
Hey…I’m not blaming anyone. I just said you libs are gonna lose a good whipping boy.
No sorry, if they invite the public at large to distribute speech on their private business site I see no reason that they cannot have free speech protections forced on them the same way that mall did. Go read the ruling if you haven’t already.
Then go fight for that.
I disagree with that ruling.
Settled law, stare decisis
I think this could be a problem, but I am unsure as to the solution…
The problem is that in today’s day and age, even though they are private companies, social media is a huge way many people communicate.
It would be like back in the “Bell” days of telephones if the phone company was deciding who you were allowed to call, and when you were allowed to do it.
Seems a weird case to use as defense anyway. The hippy California Constitution is actually more broader than the US Constitution’s first amendment.
I don’t think this case would stand as precedent for a number of reasons. Besides the fact that the mall was allowed to make “reasonable recommendations,” (which, in my opinion, includes having the option to remove from your platform a man who claims that the children who died at Sandy Hook were child actors), but the breadth of the internet, versus the Pruneyard case being about states being able to broaden their rights beyond the constitution (provided they don’t violate the constitution). I find the idea that the highest court in the land would find that privately hosted web space on the internet can be compelled to host content that it has determined violates its own guidelines a bit unlikely compared to what was found in Pruneyard case, especially given that Jones has been spreading his own content with ease long predating the explosion of social media.
Infowars has been banned from all major platforms along with Ron Paul and it seems Drudge is next and maybe foxnews
Okay? What’s your point?
Jones’ fans should boycott social media.
It’s a long overdue move by the companies that allowed Alex Jones to spread hate and lies.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
The point is the Left in big tech are censoring conservative voices. even if you do not like Jones or drudge or Ron Paul they are being censored for supporting Trump. None of the statements put out gave any specifics. Yes they are private companies but they also holdmonopolies. Monopolies that we should boycott. Oh I forgot to mention Apple whacked him too
Not a fan of capitalism I guess? What are you suggesting should be done about it? You mention boycotting these sites. Is that what you are asking people to do? Anything more?
Alex Jones and Ron Paul have NO right to use the social media platforms to spread their hate and lies.
If they want to do that, then they should join the highly successful Conservapedia and build their own platform to spread lies and hate.
Are you sure you want to be comparing FoxNews and Drudge to InfoWars?
Hell…even most ardent leftists would agree there’s a huge gulf there.
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plaugis the Wise?
When it comes to content, there are monopolies on the internet.
It’s what makes it so great.
Oh wow- now you actually want to CLAIM Alex Jones as a conservative voice?
Hoo boy! Even most ardent conservatives wouldn’t do that.