How can a private social media company violate somebody’s first amendment rights? Here’s a hint: they can’t.
The first amendment prevents censorship or compelled speech BY THE GOVERNMENT. Section 230 protection does not make social media companies government entities.
So, again, thank you very much for proving just how little the right wing nutjobs who rant about “the left being anti-free speech” understand about free speech or the first amendment. Truly pathetic.
The companies are acting as political advocacy groups at the instruction/demand of the government which is the government restricting free speech.
When the government demands posts be taken down or people be banned and the company complies because they agree with the politics or fear the consequences of defying the government the 1st amendment is being violated.
That’s not what the Florida and Texas laws are about. The conservatives already lost the case at the Supreme Court about the government coercing social media companies to censor COVID nonsense.
Florida and Texas passed laws requiring social media companies to host conservative viewpoints and outlaw banning politicians. Florida and Texas’ laws a direct violation of the first amendment because the GOVERNMENT is compelling private companies to host speech that they don’t want to.
Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and just making an *ss out of yourself.
Please do explain why the government should be able to treat the first amendment rights of social media companies differently than the first amendment rights of Arby’s.
I know you WANT the government to be able to trample all over the first amendment (when convenient for you), but that doesn’t make “the left anti-free speech,” it does make you a pathetic hypocrite though.
If you can find me some e-mails from the federal government demanding Arby's restrict the speech of its customers you will have a point.
You can't and you don't.
Wrong f*cking case, chucklehead.
You’re talking about Murthy v. Missouri (which the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden Administration).
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and a reporter for SCOTUSblog; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. She primarily writes for her eponymous blog, Howe on the Court. Be...
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will defend HB 20, a Texas law that prevents major social media platforms from engaging in viewpoint discrimination and censorship, at the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) on Feb...
The companies are acting as political advocacy groups at the instruction/demand of the government which is the government restricting free speech.
When the government demands posts be taken down or people be banned and the company complies because they agree with the politics or fear the consequences of defying the government the 1st amendment is being violated.
That’s not what the Florida and Texas laws are about. The conservatives already lost the case at the Supreme Court about the government coercing social media companies to censor COVID nonsense.
Florida and Texas passed laws requiring social media companies to host conservative viewpoints and outlaw banning politicians. Florida and Texas’ laws a direct violation of the first amendment because the GOVERNMENT is compelling private companies to host speech that they don’t want to.
Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and just making an *ss out of yourself.
You think the court was wrong to overturn Roe but in your tiny cult mind you can't comprehend the court being wrong when you don't agree.... lol.
When a full third of the population gets their news from social media it is dishonest to pretend these are just run of the mill private companies.
Brojos, please lock this thread to registered users. The toxic nature of many of the posts allowed to remain is disturbing.
This would be suppression of free speech. There is no hope for reconciliation between GOP and democrats, so further discussions in this subject would be meaningless anyways.
Social media companies are digital town squares and speech should be protected even if the leftist trash running the company don't agree with the speech.
Mods, another disgusting post encouraging violence. Please monitor this more closely.
No one is buying fake right wing outrage over political violence….you gave up that right on January 6th
On January 6th when no one was killed but 1 protestor. Meanwhile, Democrats killed dozens of people in 2020 as they rioted for the dumbest reasons imaginable.
That’s not what the Florida and Texas laws are about. The conservatives already lost the case at the Supreme Court about the government coercing social media companies to censor COVID nonsense.
Florida and Texas passed laws requiring social media companies to host conservative viewpoints and outlaw banning politicians. Florida and Texas’ laws a direct violation of the first amendment because the GOVERNMENT is compelling private companies to host speech that they don’t want to.
Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and just making an *ss out of yourself.
You think the court was wrong to overturn Roe but in your tiny cult mind you can't comprehend the court being wrong when you don't agree.... lol.
When a full third of the population gets their news from social media it is dishonest to pretend these are just run of the mill private companies.
So they’re like a newspaper? Great! The Supreme Court has already ruled that newspapers have wide latitude in editorial decisions (like, not hosting conservative viewpoints). Thanks for clarifying that Texas’ and Florida’s laws are unconstitutional First Amendment violations and that the right doesn’t understand free speech or the First Amendment. Would you like to dig yourself an even deeper hole?
That’s not what the Florida and Texas laws are about. The conservatives already lost the case at the Supreme Court about the government coercing social media companies to censor COVID nonsense.
Florida and Texas passed laws requiring social media companies to host conservative viewpoints and outlaw banning politicians. Florida and Texas’ laws a direct violation of the first amendment because the GOVERNMENT is compelling private companies to host speech that they don’t want to.
Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and just making an *ss out of yourself.
You think the court was wrong to overturn Roe but in your tiny cult mind you can't comprehend the court being wrong when you don't agree.... lol.
When a full third of the population gets their news from social media it is dishonest to pretend these are just run of the mill private companies.
lol this court isn’t even consistent with itself, they claim to be textualists then invent a brand new immunity and evidence rules for POTUS that the founding fathers specifically did not want.
Hamilton- ““The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
You think the court was wrong to overturn Roe but in your tiny cult mind you can't comprehend the court being wrong when you don't agree.... lol.
When a full third of the population gets their news from social media it is dishonest to pretend these are just run of the mill private companies.
So they’re like a newspaper? Great! The Supreme Court has already ruled that newspapers have wide latitude in editorial decisions (like, not hosting conservative viewpoints). Thanks for clarifying that Texas’ and Florida’s laws are unconstitutional First Amendment violations and that the right doesn’t understand free speech or the First Amendment. Would you like to dig yourself an even deeper hole?
Again, the court can be wrong. And again, there's thousands of newspapers and 2 or 3 social media companies.
You think the court was wrong to overturn Roe but in your tiny cult mind you can't comprehend the court being wrong when you don't agree.... lol.
When a full third of the population gets their news from social media it is dishonest to pretend these are just run of the mill private companies.
lol this court isn’t even consistent with itself, they claim to be textualists then invent a brand new immunity and evidence rules for POTUS that the founding fathers specifically did not want.
Hamilton- ““The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
You're using the leftist moron interpretation of the ruling and not the actual ruling...
Social media companies are digital town squares and speech should be protected even if the leftist trash running the company don't agree with the speech.
Social media companies are PRIVATE companies (owned by shareholders), not PUBLIC squares (owned by the government). Again, the right is so brainwashed they don’t recognize free speech or first amendment violations when it smacks them in the face.
So they’re like a newspaper? Great! The Supreme Court has already ruled that newspapers have wide latitude in editorial decisions (like, not hosting conservative viewpoints). Thanks for clarifying that Texas’ and Florida’s laws are unconstitutional First Amendment violations and that the right doesn’t understand free speech or the First Amendment. Would you like to dig yourself an even deeper hole?
Again, the court can be wrong. And again, there's thousands of newspapers and 2 or 3 social media companies.
Stop being dishonest.
I’m fully aware the court can be wrong. They’ve demonstrated that ability repeatedly of late. The first amendment doesn’t apply to social media companies because there’s not many of them? What the f*ck sort of short-bus logic is that?
