41

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.

2 Likes
42

I am saying that you do not get to determine what is good speech. look at mills on Liberty, it is all good.

and BTW I do fine that picture offensive.

43

People rioting or destroying property because they donā€™t approve of someoneā€™s 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.

45

Technically illegal?

46

Hilarious.

47

i have a good question for you guys. who makes dumber points? Trump or some Trump Republicans?

4 Likes
48

The OP doesnā€™t really care about this He just wants people to engage with him. Heā€™s is fully aware of what the first amendment means. Heā€™s just pretending not to so that the thread wonā€™t die.

49

What kind of person would do that?

50

A lonely person.

1 Like
51

Is wrong when Hannity bans posters here?

52

Well, now Iā€™m going to care a lot more about him than before.

Thanks ref.

Lonely people are people too.

Sometimes I feel lonely.

1 Like
53

Libs donā€™t deserve first amendment protections.

54

I ate a week timeout for calling a post retarded a couple of weeks ago where were these folks then?

1 Like
55

Ok. One. Youā€™re a lib.

Two. Although you probably did this, always make sure youā€™re calling the argument retarded, and not the poster.

Actually, not that itā€™s against the rules, but calling something retarded stopped being a thing in the 90s. There are better words that you can use instead of ā€œstupid.ā€ Honestly, if you have to use ā€œretardedā€ when you mean ā€œstupidā€ because you donā€™t know another synonym, you might be a little of what youā€™re trying to describe.

No offence. Just busting your chops a little.

56

It was a whole thread and I used a meme.

57

I donā€™t recall that thread.

I was commented more on your usage in this thread.

I donā€™t 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 someoneā€™s mental handicap.

58

Shelley v. Kraemer (Shelley v. Kraemer - Wikipedia) (1948) ā€œ[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 doesnā€™t 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 youā€™ll have a hard time finding anything that applies - do feel free to present your thoughts though.

59

Donā€™t persecute me like I am a Trumpkin. :smile:

60

I break character whenever and for whatever reason I please.

61

And how many dozens of times do the First Amendment and the protections of the Civil Rights Act have to be explained to them?

It doesnā€™t penetrate their brains. It hurts them too deeply to have that ignorant talking point taking away.

The commentators on Fox News certainly donā€™t help either with the misinformation they spread.

1 Like