That’s some weird logic there buddy…allowing greater freedom isn’t telling anyone how to live…specially where the BoR’s are concern. It prevents goverment from interfering with our freedoms.
Am I wrong or haven’t you argued that a very narrow ruling about an open air California mall having to let people peacefully solicit or use their speech in the common areas that has been walked back every time it is revisited to mean that YouTube should be forced to carry Infowars?
Nope. Missing quite a bit of nuance. They can ban him, they just have to give up immunity from liability as a non-publisher if they are going to exercise editorial control, like a publisher.
And once again they were expressly excluded at the time the 14th was drafted, they were not US citizens an neither were their children. It took an act of congress to change that.
No, that’s exactly what I was arguing. Some of my posts from that thread
And when I was talking about Pruneyard, that was in reference to state constitutions which in some cases have much broader speech protection than the US constitution. Nowhere in that thread did I intimate my understanding of the US constitution meant youtube could not ban Alex Jones. Which is not to say there can be no legislative action prohibiting it or removing their protection from liability as a content aggregator as opposed to a publisher.
Well no, the Indians were singled out for a reason, because they were a people who were in the country who didn’t owe exclusive allegiance to the US. They were in essence foreign nationals born on US soil who owed allegiance to their tribes and not the US government. IE they were not under the complete political jurisdiction of the US.
Only when they were residing on their lands. Indians residing on US soil apart from their tribe were under our complete jurisdiction. Saying otherwise is complete gibberish, especially within the context of Trumbull’s quotes.