The terms of service should be one word: freedom.
Do you agree with the terms or not?
Cynic
194
People who have admitted to censoring people on forums like this, now pretending to be advocates for uninhibited free speech on private platforms is just too much. 
3 Likes
Which law are they breaking?
Did I say they were breaking one? I said they’re a publisher and as such are subject to the same laws as every other publisher. You aren’t very good at this.
It gets boring pointing out the hypocrisy on this time after time.
It gets boring defending against strawmen time after time.
And? Let’s say they are. Is there a case counselor?
As for what you say they are. Who gives a ■■■■ what you think. The law determines that and you have nothing legally to support that, nor precedent.
Cynic
200
It’s the truth, people are just playing tribal politics as usual. I do find it sad that Trump is aligning himself and his party with these repulsive people though… truthers and anti-semites… yuck
Fortunately for you one want presented here. Well except your own. How ironic
John Stewart left “The Daily Show” years ago. Please update your talking points.
I know I get my orders from George Soros and Bill Ayers via dark web connections hosted on Hillary’s server.
1 Like
If I can’t post x-rated images on this website, are we truly free?
2 Likes
Isn’t it cool how so-called christians can make up some kind of religious rule and then they don’t have to follow business law, even tho they promised to do so by getting a business license?
1 Like
If a private company has been excused from potential prosecution for libel on the basis that they are not publishers, then they should not be allowed to censor the content of their platforms without having that waiver against libel suits rescinded.
James woods is a goob. He’s a token spokesman for the “right” because they only have like 2 Hollywood celebrities they can claim as their own.
MoleUK
207
Pretty much, social media has blown up the political and cultural importance of figures who were previously either irrelevant or fringe.
There are loony figures on the left who have also benefited from social media prominency, but American conservatism has been particularly badly affected. I think in large part because of their dislike and dismissal of “MSM” figures/channels.
zantax
208
Gay people aren’t owed wedding cakes either…
zantax
209
And those platforms don’t have a right to a business license.
MoleUK
210
They can speak just fine. Facebook and twitter don’t have monopolies, they don’t eat up all the competitors or prevent competition in any way. They’re just dominant.
There is gab for example. All the white nationalists banned from twitter flocked there did they not?
zantax
211
It’s a real stretch to call facebook or twitter “private platforms”.
from The US Supreme Court just decided access to Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat is fundamental to free speech
“A fundamental First Amendment principle is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
Here, in one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium.”
zantax
212
Well, yes, they do have monopolies. They have defacto monopolies.
from https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/
De Facto Monopoly Law and Legal Definition
De facto monopoly is a system where many suppliers of a product are allowed, but the market is so completely dominated by one that the others might as well not exist. This is a monopoly that is not created by the government. Antitrust laws try to eliminate such kind of situations.
