I don’t think so, because 1) social media is effectively membership based and you must agree to the terms of service in order to use them, and 2) particular messages are not protected by PA laws.
A rather lengthy explanation . But Okay.
Just to point out.
Being “membership based” does not exempt one’s business from PA laws. If it’s for profit, you can bet that PA laws will apply.
COSTCO and Sam’s Club for example are membership based and since they are for profit PA laws apply. (Crafting TOS and is a different matter.)
The terms are not well defined. And are rarely enforced against liberals. These companies are allowed to be unfairly selective. And we are allowed to push back.
Just curious, do you think liberals ought to be able to use the government to force Mr. Hannity and the Mod staff not to issue time-outs and bans here at the Hannity Forum?
That has nothing to do with what I posted, and nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
That is just conjecture on you part.
Perhaps you can give a quote from one of the candidates that indicated they wanted speech stopped at a public institution.
I have to say that I don’t completely agree with you on that. Hateful speech in a true public forum can of course be regulated as to time and place. But a lot of controversy is over speakers sponsored by clubs at school and colleges, and that I think can be more generally regulated. Secondary school is not a public forum, and neither are universities, in general.
Ah, I read a little bit more about it and I think you’re not, but not necessarily because they are for-profit, but for the fact that they are open to the public and basically anyone can join. Exclusivity is one of the key aspects.
so, to my point, 2) is a much stronger argument. Particular messages are not protected by PA laws.
LOL. we will sue…LOL that type of suit would be laughed out of court.
Let’s assume your premise is correct that conservatives are disproportionately blocked from these services than liberals. The vast majority of conservatives are not blocked from these services. Therefore, it’s easier to assume that it’s a particular type of speech that happens to be more prevalent among some conservatives that is being acted on. Not that fact that people happen to have a conservative ideology. For example, neo-nazis are going to generally hold conservative views. Banning nazis isn’t discrimination against conservatives. It’s just that the overwhelming majority of nazis are conservative. The vast portion of conservatives are not nazis.
As of right now. But I’m sure “some” would like that to change.
I’m guessing that a follow up question is coming?
Well that’s not true Allan.
I disagree. That amounts to a license to exercise religion.
I like the new term “wrongspeak” much better than “hate speech”.
Not true. Fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Most of their principles align. There is nothing conservative about Nazis. Not a thing. They are more communist than they are conservative.
It’s like when they use the tern socialist/ anarchists. They are polar opposites. You can’t be both.
Wrong. Nazis are totalitarians. Just like fascists and commies.
Conservatives are libertarians.
The term hate speech is used by people who wish to suppress free speech. They are the enemy of the people.
You don’t have a right to a private platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc)