If I begin living there, or pay rent. Then No. The homeowner cannot tell me how to talk. I can swear, curse my butt off. He can’t do anything about it.
I pay rent.
If you live there and pay rent. You have the right to say what you want. Even if the homeowner doesn’t like it. After all It is your domain. You pay rent. Some people do rent from a homeowner who also lives in the same house.
Years back, I rented One side of a house and the homeowner lived there too on the other side. No one has a right to tell me how to talk.
I was respectful though.
Now, if I did not live there I still have a right to use any type of language you want too.
But YES. I will probably be asked to leave.
What if I don’t leave?
Then the homeowner can call the law and have me removed.
They probably won’t do much but ask me why I won’t leave. If I say ok ok I’ll leave.
In other words.
No. The homeowner cannot monitor my speech if I pay rent or live there. Even if I don’t pay rent in some states.
Yes. The homeowner can force me to leave his home if he doesn’t like my speech. But I’m not breaking any law by my speech. I’m breaking a law that would be maybe tresspassing.
I’m on a piece of property that I’ve been asked to leave.
If I don’t leave Then I’ve broken a law. But no law has been broken because of my speech.
Your only Constitutional right with regard to free speech is that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Private entities can do whatever they want to abridge your speech.
Liberal giants do indeed block conservative statements.
Yahoo News will not allow me to make comments now. They did not reference anything I said as against their rules, they just did it. Basically, I typed there about the way I do here…conservative and Republican.
It does create a false impression of common public opinion when they do that.
I am all for making this known. That is about as far as I will go for now.
The answer if for conservatives not to use these sites. I will not now use Yahoo News on a regular basis. If it costs them money, they may hesitate. There is still Fox News. Liberals complain about it but then we are not welcome at their sites.
I am very hesitant for the government to get involved. They may solve your “free speech” problem here, but they have a potential for creating a bigger free speech problem in the future once they start taking steps here. That’s why I’m for strict construction of the first amendment, whether its control of donations to politics or banning private censorship of liberal sites. Don’t do it.
The first amendment hasn’t been applied to social media sites by federal courts, yet, but I wouldn’t bet it won’t be. Kennedy for example went on record calling them the modern public square not long ago. States like California have asserted citizens have a right to speech on private property like malls a long time ago.
In his opinion, Kennedy said “cyberspace,” and social media in particular, are now the most important places for exchanging views. He cited LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook as places for discussing entrepreneurship, petitioning elected officials, and debating religion and politics.
“These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard,” he wrote, referring to social media sites as a “modern public square.”
Is it? California courts have repeatedly forced malls to allow speech they disagree with at their expense, which is quite a bit more expensive then hosting a twitter comment.
