I think the OP is referring to the public arena. It is well recognized that private property owners may regulate or forbid speech on their private property.
Well it’s not liberal speech that is being restricted. It’s conservative. You guys are not the ones who are constantly being labeled as haters for no real reason. The SCOTUS is occupied by conservatives. but that could change. A few liberal law professors from free speech restricting colleges could change all of that. Free speech is being restricted in the private sector. It is totally possible that the government could do the same. People are being conditioned to accept it.
I’ve seen numerous posters here and on other sites that thank laws should be put in place to prevent social media from banning what they perceive as a “conservative voice”.
.
.
.
.^^^^
1 Like
Certainly incendiary speech, that which incites violence or places people in imminent danger, is not protected. However, I’m not sure what hate speech is. There’s hateful speech, using derogatory terms, vile or bigoted language, etc, and, yes, I think that’s protected. Polite, homogenized, overly cautious speech doesn’t need protection because it’s not offensive; it’s precisely speech that might be provocative, potentially offensive, or controversial that needs protection.
What’s this “you guys” kemosabe?
I’ve been voting GOP since 1978.
.
.
.
.^^^^
Protection from who? It’s already protected as of right now.
That actually brings up an interesting question. Could the government extend the “public accommodation” doctrine to cover social media???
NOT a question that I am going to answer definitely right now, but that is a possible route the government might explore and the precedent already exists via civil rights laws.
Why do you call me Kemosabe?
Well that all depends on the meaning of “counter”.
Speaking out against Nazis and White Supremacists is a 1st Amendment Right and might be considered a moral duty.
Physically attacking such people is not covered by the 1st Amendment, but, more importantly, we know that one of the major strategies of the White Supremacist/Neo-Nazi groups in programs like Charlottesville was to provoke violent reactions so that they can paint themselves as victims.
“Counter” in that form plays right into the hands of those you oppose.
Are you an American Indian or claimed to have been one at some point? If not then I am at a loss.
Why do you associate me with liberals? Quote: “Well it’s not liberal speech that is being restricted. It’s conservative. You guys are not the ones who are constantly being labeled as haters for no real reason.”
.
.
.
.^^^^
1 Like
And here is me, Safiel, now using the First Amendment to yank people’s chains. 
Sorry, just had to do this.
I’ve never been tested, but I probably have as much right to claim to be as Elizabeth Warren does.
As a business, I assume that social media already falls under Public Accommodation laws.
The question isn’t whether they fall under PA laws, I think they do, the question is if PA laws could (or would) be expanded to include an inability to discriminate based on political affiliation.
.
.
.
.^^^^
In your world nobody is allowed to make an honest mistake? Perfection is demanded? Okay. I answered your question. Now answer mine. Why did you call me kemosabe?
Never saw that one before.
.
.
.
.>>>>
Same reason you called me liberal. It flowed out of the keyboard without much forethought as it is a common synonym for “partner” or “friend”.
I guess the real Lone Ranger was before your time.
“Ke-mo sah-bee (/ˌkiːmoʊˈsɑːbiː/; often spelled kemo sabe, kemosabe or kimosabe) is the term of endearment used by the fictional Native American sidekick Tonto in the American television and radio programs The Lone Ranger. It has become a common catchphrase.”
.
.
.
.^^^^
1 Like
There is the famous SCOTUS opinion
SBA List v Driehaus.
Ohio had an election law against using known falsehoods in election literature
SBA list posted foul lies about then Congressman Driehuas.
Driehaus complained to the election commission which enjoined SBA List from using the lies against the congressman.
It made it to SCOTUS. they ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the OHIO election law as well intentioned as was, was clearly unconstitutional.
it just wast the liberal or conservative justices, it was EVERY justice.
Allan
The problem here is proving they were banned over politics and not because they broke the rules they agreed to when they signed up.
We don’t need regulations protecting conservative victimhood. That’s all this is.
Most of the democratic candidates have succumbed to groupthink. They dare not risk an independent thought. They would love to be able to shutdown conservative speech. Just as they have done on campus. JFK would have been booted out of the party. Most of his views have pretty much been banned.
