BTW, the 14th amendment applies to the federeal government and largely extended to state government by the SC. It does not apply to private organizations.
The civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on race or gender were actually supported through control of interstate commerce, not the 14th amendment.
People rioting or destroying property because they donāt approve of someoneās speech is not acceptable and is illegal.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. bootz thinks that all private companies who provide a media sharing platform should be forced to share everything anyone wants to share.
Anyone with a kindergarten-level understanding of the Constitution should understand that is a terrible position to take in regards to the first amendment.
The OP doesnāt really care about this He just wants people to engage with him. Heās is fully aware of what the first amendment means. Heās just pretending not to so that the thread wonāt die.
Two. Although you probably did this, always make sure youāre calling the argument retarded, and not the poster.
Actually, not that itās against the rules, but calling something retarded stopped being a thing in the 90s. There are better words that you can use instead of āstupid.ā Honestly, if you have to use āretardedā when you mean āstupidā because you donāt know another synonym, you might be a little of what youāre trying to describe.
I was commented more on your usage in this thread.
I donāt really care. As I said, I was just busting your chops a little.
However, I do think there are better words that a person can use, knowing that the R word is offensive to certain people. I know too many mentally handicapped people to be throwing out insults based on someoneās mental handicap.
Shelley v. Kraemer (Shelley v. Kraemer - Wikipedia) (1948) ā[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.ā
According to the Supreme Court, the 14th doesnāt apply here. Actions by Facebook/Twitter/Google/et al are private in nature, and they are not state actors. Therefore, the 14th is complete irrelevant to this discussion.
As to the Civil Rights Act, it would be absolutely delightful if you could point to the specific section(s) that you think apply here. However, since none of this has to do with Mr Jonesā race, color, religion, sex, or national origin I think youāll have a hard time finding anything that applies - do feel free to present your thoughts though.