This isnt a freedom of speech issue
Your welcome
zantax
214
Yes, it is. That’s like saying denying black people a seat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter wasn’t a civil rights issue because Woolworths was a private company.
No its not… let me clue you in.
No it’s not a freedom of speech issue. They still have the right to Express their moronic opinions. They just cant use that private forum to do so…just like when you get banned here…
This isnt complicated…your argument is false.
zantax
216
When a business invites the general public in, they are no longer just private property.
from Free speech or censorship? Social media litigation is a hot legal battleground
“Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion,” wrote Justice Hugo Black in recognizing the free-speech rights of a Jehovah’s Witness to distribute literature on the company-owned streets. “The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”
So no more bans and timeouts here?
Lol…good luck…you have no ground to stand on…
zantax
219
Oh there is some legal ground to stand on now, and of course new laws may be written.
Give us an example of what kind of laws could be written…
zantax
221
See the civil rights act of 1964. Or the whole body of public accommodation laws.
how do they have a monopoly is someone stopping you from creating a website?
Facebook has market share they have no more access to the internet then MySpace or any other social networking site.
zantax
223
Did you skip the definition I kindly posted for you?
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.
but they don’t stop other website from existing, this website and Facebook have the exact same networking ability and access to consumers.
now if you wanna talk about internet service providers there is very much a monopoly.
It’s actually up to three now. Eastwood, James Woods, and Kevin Sorbo.
how would an anti-trust law break up Facebook.
its a website.
I’m not seeing anything in the civilized rights act that protect political views… Can you help a little more?
1 Like
zantax
228
Again, read the definition I gave you. There are many forms of monopolies, facebook and twitter are defacto monopolies.
They are not monopolies because they don’t control their market place.
I could create a website called Twitter #2 and it would have the same access and networking ability as Twitter.
zantax
230
That’s why I mentioned new laws could be written, if law can be written extending the protections in the fourteenth to public accommodations there is no reason the same thing can’t be done for the first.
There is no way to “break” up social media companies.
how would you break up facebook?
zantax
232
Again, read the damn definition, I don’t know how to make it any clearer than this.
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.
