Supreme Court Takes Case That Could End Internet Censorship, Expand First Amendment

[DamianTV]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-17/supreme-court-takes-case-could-end-internet-censorship-expand-first-amendment


After the recent purge of over 800 independent media outlets on Facebook, the Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could have ramifications for any future attempts at similar purges.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/supreme.jpg

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that could change free speech on the Internet forever.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, the case that it has agreed to take, will decide if the private operator of a public access network is considered a state actor, CNBC reported.

The case could affect how companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and YouTube are governed. If the Court were to issue a far-reaching ruling it could subject such companies to First Amendment lawsuits and force them to allow a much broader scope of free speech from its users.

The Court decided to take the case on Friday and it is the first case that was taken after Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.

DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez claimed that they were fired from Manhattan Neighborhood Network for speaking critically of the network. And, though the case does not involve the Internet giants, it could create a ruling that expands the First Amendment beyond the government.


“We stand at a moment when the very issue at the heart of this case — the interplay between private entities, nontraditional media, and the First Amendment — has been playing out in the courts, in other branches of government, and in the media itself,” the attorneys from MNN wrote in their letter to the Court asking it to take the case.

...

This should obviously be watched VERY closely... Full article at link.

[r3volution 3.0]

Supreme Court Takes Case That Could End Internet Censorship

i.e. force private enterprises to serve people they don't want to serve


Expand First Amendment

i.e. apply it to private enterprises, to which it is expressly not applicable

[Grandmastersexsay]

In case any of you need a reminder:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A private company, like Facebook, is not Congress and private companies do not make laws. Those are called rules. Seriously, what is wrong with you people who want to limit private property rights of everyone because you don't like the political ideology of a few? Have some principals.

[DamianTV]

Whats being debated is the difference between a Platform and a Publisher. Both have their own sets of Rights and Responsibilities. What they want tho is to have ALL Rights and ZERO responsibilities.

Now, Facebook got its start by funding pretty much from Govt Subsidies (indirectly and buried), which means its Public Property, thus, Free Speech applies on Facebook

---

Either way, the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling will have MASSIVE results, regardless of my opinion, and especially if I am wrong which I very well might be.

[Grandmastersexsay]

Whats being debated is the difference between a Platform and a Publisher. Both have their own sets of Rights and Responsibilities. What they want tho is to have ALL Rights and ZERO responsibilities.

Now, Facebook got its start by funding pretty much from Govt Subsidies (indirectly and buried), which means its Public Property, thus, Free Speech applies on Facebook

---

Either way, the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling will have MASSIVE results, regardless of my opinion, and especially if I am wrong which I very well might be.

Lol, if a company takes government subsidies, it becomes public property? That's a new one. I'm surprised Facebook's lawyers missed that in their contracts with local municipalities that gave them incentives to set up shop in their towns.

[nobody's_hero]

Whats being debated is the difference between a Platform and a Publisher. Both have their own sets of Rights and Responsibilities. What they want tho is to have ALL Rights and ZERO responsibilities.

Now, Facebook got its start by funding pretty much from Govt Subsidies (indirectly and buried), which means its Public Property, thus, Free Speech applies on Facebook

---

Either way, the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling will have MASSIVE results, regardless of my opinion, and especially if I am wrong which I very well might be.

Yep. I'd follow the money before I write facebook off as a private entity.

Having said that, I wonder why no alternatives have taken shape. Clearly there is a demand for it. How about Truthtube? Or youTruth? Does the left really have ALL the IT/web-design gurus who can make it happen?

[DamianTV]

Lol, if a company takes government subsidies, it becomes public property? That's a new one.

People paid for phone lines. That means the actual cable that was run from the phone company to their homes. Due to this, it caused the Public Utilities Commission to be formed because it was determined in court that because the people had paid for the phone line itself as well as the services, the PEOPLE owned the phone lines, not the phone company.

[Grandmastersexsay]

People paid for phone lines. That means the actual cable that was run from the phone company to their homes. Due to this, it caused the Public Utilities Commission to be formed because it was determined in court that because the people had paid for the phone line itself as well as the services, the PEOPLE owned the phone lines, not the phone company.

And companies like Facebook don't claim to own the fiberoptic lines of the internet. They are not an ISP. Even though PEOPLE own the phone lines, the PEOPLE don't own a company that is using those phone lines. This is an absurd argument.

[r3volution 3.0]

Whats being debated is the difference between a Platform and a Publisher. Both have their own sets of Rights and Responsibilities. What they want tho is to have ALL Rights and ZERO responsibilities.

Websites like Facebook, unlike traditional publishers, aren't held legally responsible for the content they publish, because they doesn't exercise the same degree of editorial control over their content. I see nothing wrong with that but, if you do, the solution would be to strip them of their immunity, not try to force some kind CRA-style anti-discrimination policy on them.

[Zippyjuan]

What the case is actually about- public access TV: https://abx.com/about/leadership/


Supreme Court to hear public access TV case

OCTOBER 16, 2018 10:30:50 AM Elizabeth Lowman
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari Friday in a case that will determine whether private operators of public access channels qualify as state actors for First Amendment purposes.

In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) suspended producer Jesus Melendez from a leadership program for allegedly harassing an employee. In response, Melendez and Deedee Halleck, another producer, produced and appeared in a video using violent language. MNN broadcast the program once in 2012, but after complaints that it violated the station’s harassment policy, ceased broadcasts and suspended Halleck.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Melendez and Halleck. The court decided that the public access channels are “public fora,” and the private operators “have a sufficient connection to governmental authority to be deemed state actors” even though the government does not control the networks’ board. According to the court, the First Amendment applied. The network appeals, claiming that the Second Circuit used improper tests in deciding the issues.


https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-takes-public-access-tv-case-with-bigger-implications


The Supreme Court accepted the case to settle two questions. The first question is if privately owned public access channels are state actors subject to “constitutional liability,” meaning that speakers on the channels have free-speech rights. The second question is if public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes when the state doesn’t control the private channel’s board or operations (i.e., its content).

The channel is non- profit but is privately owned.

[Champ]

A private company, like Facebook, is not Congress and private companies do not make laws. Those are called rules. Seriously, what is wrong with you people who want to limit private property rights of everyone because you don't like the political ideology of a few? Have some principals.

If it was simply just a private company, then you would be right.

Unfortunately Facebook and all of the other major social networking sites have grown far beyond being simple private companies. They work lockstep hand in hand with the government and various government agencies to achieve common goals, such as censorship, propaganda, and mass surveillance.

Whistleblowers have been proving this for years and Snowden is far from the only one that blew the cover off of this collusion aimed at destroying our civil liberties, concealing damaging information regarding government institutions, and having a lubricated pipeline that pumps pro-government, pro-deep state 24/7 propaganda into every citizens mind using these platforms as the catalyst.

[Swordsmyth]

Could Supreme Court Case Open Social Media to First Amendment Claims? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?527530-Could-Supreme-Court-Case-Open-Social-Media-to-First-Amendment-Claims)

[Swordsmyth]

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmissiongalacticfreedom.files.word press.com%2F2018%2F04%2Fdarpa_lifelog.jpg%3Fw%3D65 8%26h%3D511&f=1

[dannno]

Lol, if a company takes government subsidies, it becomes public property? That's a new one. I'm surprised Facebook's lawyers missed that in their contracts with local municipalities that gave them incentives to set up shop in their towns.

One issue I have was that these companies attended congressional hearings where they were instructed to limit speech. They followed the instructions, and this is what happened. So maybe the issue is government. Maybe the government shouldn't be instructing private companies to limit speech.

[angelatc]

In case any of you need a reminder:



A private company, like Facebook, is not Congress and private companies do not make laws. Those are called rules. Seriously, what is wrong with you people who want to limit private property rights of everyone because you don't like the political ideology of a few? Have some principals.

Yep. There's not a single one of us who has a "right" to be on Facebook or Twitter. Liberty people who want to government to fix things aren't Liberty people at all.

[angelatc]

Websites like Facebook, unlike traditional publishers, aren't held legally responsible for the content they publish,.....

That was changed with the recent anti-trafficking law that was signed.

[r3volution 3.0]

That was changed with the recent anti-trafficking law that was signed.

I'm not familiar with that, but I'm assuming it opens them up to liability for content relating to human trafficking?

If so, there are still other types of potential liability (e.g. re defamation) from which, AFAIK, they're still immune.

...as they should be.

[timosman]

One issue I have was that these companies attended congressional hearings where they were instructed to limit speech. They followed the instructions, and this is what happened. So maybe the issue is government. Maybe the government shouldn't be instructing private companies to limit speech.

This angle was never discussed in the press.:confused:

[angelatc]

I'm not familiar with that, but I'm assuming it opens them up to liability for content relating to human trafficking?

If so, there are still other types of potential liability (e.g. re defamation) from which, AFAIK, they're still immune.

...as they should be.

The way things should be have zero bearing on the way things are.

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGdWsxHJlM

[Brian4Liberty]

Didn’t some court already rule that Trump could not block people on Twitter?

How was that justified?

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IARczUg4JwI

[Brian4Liberty]

If it was simply just a private company, then you would be right.

Unfortunately Facebook and all of the other major social networking sites have grown far beyond being simple private companies. They work lockstep hand in hand with the government and various government agencies to achieve common goals, such as censorship, propaganda, and mass surveillance.

Whistleblowers have been proving this for years and Snowden is far from the only one that blew the cover off of this collusion aimed at destroying our civil liberties, concealing damaging information regarding government institutions, and having a lubricated pipeline that pumps pro-government, pro-deep state 24/7 propaganda into every citizens mind using these platforms as the catalyst.

The state has grown far outside it’s designated bounds via the loophole of private-public partnership. That is the elephant in the room.

“Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex."

[DamianTV]

So Trump cant block people, but Twitter can block who ever it feels like, when the "rules" are very subjectively applied.

The REAL solution here is the FREE MARKET. People get fed up with being censored, they should STOP USING THAT SERVICE PERIOD. Trouble is that there are no alternatives. There is NO FREE MARKET. And they are doing everything in their power to make sure they keep the power they have usurped. The results of their election interference are only to maintain their power over allowing people to communicate. Of course its all surveillance anyway so I could give two shits less if Fedbook gets shut down or people choose to walk away from it.

Thus, the ruling will have MAJOR ramifications everywhere, including how even small forums like here operate.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yep. I'd follow the money before I write facebook off as a private entity.

Having said that, I wonder why no alternatives have taken shape. Clearly there is a demand for it. How about Truthtube? Or youTruth? Does the left really have ALL the IT/web-design gurus who can make it happen?

That is another interesting aspect of this. What leads to total market domination by a private company? It’s usually a combination of things. Dumb luck is sometimes part of the formula, especially early on.

A social networking company is a special case. It’s not just one customer making the decision. One customer brings in more customers who want to interact with other customers. The platform gains momentum. They reach a critical mass of customers. A person must use the service to interface with others.

More traditionally, follow the money. The more money that a company has, the more that they can buy out their competition until there is no competition. Every time a competitor arises, they are bought out.

Now add government. Did government help with funding? Is government a substantial customer? Does government interfere in the market place with regulation that eliminates competition?

Once all of that occurs, you have a situation like Facebook and Twitter. At risk of repeating myself, Twitter is more like a phone company now. Everyone has a Twitter address, like a phone number or email address. Celebrities, businesses, politicians, government entities, etc all advertise their Twitter address.

Is there an entity that can ban you from acquiring a phone number? Is there an entity that can block from gettting an email address? That is what Twitter and Facebook can now do.

Can a person live without a Twitter name? Can a person live without a Facebook account? Can a person live without a phone number? Can a person live without an email address? The answer to all of the above is “yes”, but it can be severely limiting depending upon one wants to do, especially if what they want to do is exercise “speech”.

[nobody's_hero]

That is another interesting aspect of this. What leads to total market domination by a private company? It’s usually a combination of things. Dumb luck is sometimes part of the formula, especially early on.

A social networking company is a special case. It’s not just one customer making the decision. One customer brings in more customers who want to interact with other customers. The platform gains momentum. They reach a critical mass of customers. A person must use the service to interface with others.

More traditionally, follow the money. The more money that a company has, the more that they can buy out their competition until there is no competition. Every time a competitor arises, they are bought out.

Now add government. Did government help with funding? Is government a substantial customer? Does government interfere in the market place with regulation that eliminates competition?

Once all of that occurs, you have a situation like Facebook and Twitter. At risk of repeating myself, Twitter is more like a phone company now. Everyone has a Twitter address, like a phone number or email address. Celebrities, businesses, politicians, government entities, etc all advertise their Twitter address.

Is there an entity that can ban you from acquiring a phone number? Is there an entity that can block from gettting an email address? That is what Twitter and Facebook can now do.

Can a person live without a Twitter name? Can a person live without a Facebook account? Can a person live without a phone number? Can a person live without an email address? The answer to all of the above is “yes”, but it can be severely limiting depending upon one wants to do, especially if what they want to do is exercise “speech”.

It has been my observation that big corrupt business cannot exist without big corrupt government. Big corrupt government cannot exist without big corrupt business.

Ask yourself this:

YouTube/Facebook/Google/Twitter makes money off of both liberals and conservatives. Why the hell would they nonchalantly cut-off half of their support? If you're running a business, why do you look at half of your customer base and say, "F'k You, I don't want you to make me money!"

Unless . . .. you're getting a better deal from somewhere else, to convince you to make business decisions that are absolutely f'king retarded.

[kpitcher]

Didn’t some court already rule that Trump could not block people on Twitter?

How was that justified?

White house press secretary said the twitter account tweets are official statements of the president. A president can't selectively block citizens from hearing what he says. However he can mute them so he doesn't have to hear what they say back.

[angelatc]

Didn’t some court already rule that Trump could not block people on Twitter?

How was that justified?

It's because he is the president and we have a Constitutional right to address our grievances to our government.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's because he is the president and we have a Constitutional right to address our grievances to our government.

And Twitter is the only method of doing that? That makes the case for Twitter officially being a protected free speech zone.

[Ender]

And Twitter is the only methid of doing that? That makes the case for Twitter officially being a protected free speech zone.

If Trump, as president, can lambast people publicly from his Twitter account, shouldn't people be allowed to lambast back?

[TheCount]

Didn’t some court already rule that Trump could not block people on Twitter?

How was that justified?

That's a regulation on the conduct of government employees, not on twitter.

[Brian4Liberty]

If Trump, as president, can lambast people publicly from his Twitter account, shouldn't people be allowed to lambast back?

For the most part, the censorship and bans at Facebook and Twitter relate to relevant and real criticism of government, often from a libertarian perspective. Shouldn’t Daniel McAdams be able to “lambast back”?

And just because Trump blocks someone on Twitter, it does not stop them from Tweeting about Trump as much as they want...

[Brian4Liberty]

That's a regulation on the conduct of government employees, not on twitter.

And it applies only to Trump, right?

IMHO, policies, laws and court rulings based purely upon TDS are a dangerous precedent.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's a regulation on the conduct of government employees, not on twitter.

Indeed, the government can regulate the behavior of its own employees however it likes.

If they want to require the President to do a break-dance every morning on the White House lawn, they can do that.

If a person doesn't like the terms of employment, he need not apply for the job.

[TheCount]

And it applies only to Trump, right?

IMHO, policies, laws and court rulings based purely upon TDS are a dangerous precedent.


This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary% 20judgment.pdf


The only TDS here is yours.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary% 20judgment.pdf


The only TDS here is yours.

Right...

It’s pure coincidence that this lawsuit and the court judgements came about because of Trump. Before that, it was perfectly ok for a Twitter user (politician, elected official or any other got employee) to block another Twitter user.

[TheCount]

Right...

It’s pure coincidence that this lawsuit and the court judgements came about because of Trump. Before that, it was perfectly ok for a Twitter user (politician, elected official or any other got employee) to block another Twitter user.

Behold the TDS.

Ignore the fact that you were wrong and the ruling applies to everyone. Make it all about your daddy even when it's not.

[Brian4Liberty]

Behold the TDS.

Ignore the fact that you were wrong and the ruling applies to everyone. Make it all about your daddy even when it's not.

Lol. Who do you think you are fooling?

And you dishonestly ignore the entire point. It doesn’t matter who it supposedly applies to (and we’ll see how that is enforced in the future), this would not have come up, and probably would have been thrown right out of court if not for your precious demon Trump.

Twitter didn’t just come into being yesterday. For many years, people used it as a badge of honor when a politician or pundit blocked them. It wasn’t until Trump that hysterical TDS inflicted leftist snowflakes starting crying about it. Quit yer whining and be a man!

[Brian4Liberty]

The Corporatist War On Free Speech - Are We A Nation Of Sheep? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZh4ow0yhZM)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZh4ow0yhZM

From Ron Paul, at the 5 minute mark:

“The more I think about it, the more my conclusion is that these corporations need more charges made against them as being part of the government than working hard to protect their rights as an independent company. They’re not an independent company. If you look at the way they were established, if you look at their contracts, their immunity...they break their contract, if you sue them, they have immunity, just like government has immunity.”

[DamianTV]

Hegalian Dialectic - Problem Reaction Solution

The whole narrative is Argument Bait intended to keep us fighting amonst ourselves instead of considering REAL solutions, such as Free Market and supporting Uncensored Platforms. They work BACKWARDS. They WANT power to Censor Websites at the highest level. That is their goal. They want to ELIMINATE FREE SPEECH, but for that to happen, they create Problems to which the Reaction is to call for MORE GOVT as the SOLUTION.

Think backwards on that. To get a Solution that allows Govt to tell everyone "Ban these people but not those", they need the perception of support from as many as possible. To get that support, they do everything in their power to show that "Free Speech Is Bad". To do that, going backwards, they artifically manufacture a Problem. They are about to get their Solution, where Admins and Private Site Owners are forced to abide by the SCOTUS ruling.

Free Speech must be protected. But what they are offering us to protect our Free Speech will have the exact OPPOSITE result.

Second thing to note is the COMMUNIST approach to the solution, the ELIMINATION OF PRIVATE PLATFORMS, so everything is Govt run, owned, operated, and regulated into oblivion. The Law is being exploited to eliminate competition of websites that truly do NOT Censor based on political views.

Free Speech does need to be protected, and we know we cant trust Govt to give us a meaningful solution. Calling for Free Speech on Facebook and YouTube is us trying to tell Facebook and Google how to operate their websites and what we want from them. We all get pissed off and are pretty much trained to fall into the Hegalian Dialectic of Problem Reaction Solution so we call for Govt Intervention, which is what they want. Im human, and even Im subject to being manipulated.

The best solution is to stop using Facebook and YouTube to promote yourself or your business. Those that are left we know would end up being those that support Censorship, such as MSM. They still intend to put in place a License to post anything on the Internet. This is just a small step towards that goal. But what does a License mean? Free Speech on the Internet is PROHIBITED BY DEFAULT, unless you are granted Permission to speak. Speak in favor of your oppressors and you will be granted a License, maybe. Speak in condemnation of your oppressors and you have no chance of getting that License. This is Mass Psychology and Population Control. And there are plenty of contingency plans in place in the event this plan fails.

Open uncensored communication enables others to hear opposing views which promotes Critical Thinking. The greatest danger to the Status Quo is those who openly identify their methods of manipulation which enables more people to learn how to mount a meaningful defense against their Mass Psychology. This is nothing more than control over a persons Beliefs in the Belief Money Violence paradigm. Control what is said to control the minds of the observers. Flat out Mind Control, using Mass Psychology and the Hegalian Dialectic.

[TheCount]

Lol. Who do you think you are fooling?

Myself, evidently.


And you dishonestly ignore the entire point. It doesn’t matter who it supposedly applies to (and we’ll see how that is enforced in the future), this would not have come up, and probably would have been thrown right out of court if not for your precious demon Trump.

Is that because of TDS or because of Trump? If attention whoring on Twitter were not such a central aspect of Trump's presidency, it wouldn't have come up. Official use of social media has become important because those officials have made it important.



Twitter didn’t just come into being yesterday. For many years, people used it as a badge of honor when a politician or pundit blocked them. It wasn’t until Trump that hysterical TDS inflicted leftist snowflakes starting crying about it. Quit yer whining and be a man!

Says the guy who has liberty in his username and who, despite that, is arguing for nationalization of private enterprise because of bans.

[dannno]

Says the guy who has liberty in his username and who, despite that, is arguing for nationalization of private enterprise because of bans.

He quoted Ron Paul... do you think Ron Paul is arguing to nationalize private enterprise?

[TheCount]

He quoted Ron Paul... do you think Ron Paul is arguing to nationalize private enterprise?

Although the quote was used to imply that, if you listen to it in context, it's clear that neither of them are suggesting additional regulation.

"We're seeing the US government, and especially the elites in washington, essentially outsourcing the job of being the jackbooted thugs shutting down newspapers, outsourcing that to this kind of amorphous pseudo-private sector..."


"If we can retain that amount of freedom, the freedom of expression where you can compete, even with the government, I think that we can survive it all. But, right now, it's a little shaky; maybe it's good that we wake up now and look at this before a lot more people suffer from the consequence of government regulation and closing down our right to express ourselves."

[dannno]

Although the quote was used to imply that, if you listen to it in context, it's clear that neither of them are suggesting additional regulation.

"We're seeing the US government, and especially the elites in washington, essentially outsourcing the job of being the jackbooted thugs shutting down newspapers, outsourcing that to this kind of amorphous pseudo-private sector..."


"If we can retain that amount of freedom, the freedom of expression where you can compete, even with the government, I think that we can survive it all. But, right now, it's a little shaky; maybe it's good that we wake up now and look at this before a lot more people suffer from the consequence of government regulation and closing down our right to express ourselves."


The quote was:


“The more I think about it, the more my conclusion is that these corporations need more charges made against them as being part of the government than working hard to protect their rights as an independent company. They’re not an independent company. If you look at the way they were established, if you look at their contracts, their immunity...they break their contract, if you sue them, they have immunity, just like government has immunity.”


The point is this is all more nuanced and complicated than trolls like you make it out to be. The solutions are complicated, none of us know what to do.

But you trolls keep cheering on these companies for shutting people like Alex Jones down, when essentially, they were following the instructions the government gave them to shut them down which is a violation of free speech... and you are rooting it on. Then you pretend to be for free speech. It's all a fucking farce and we can see right through you.

[TheCount]

But you trolls keep cheering on these companies for shutting people like Alex Jones down, when essentially, they were following the instructions the government gave them to shut them down which is a violation of free speech... and you are rooting it on. Then you pretend to be for free speech. It's all a fucking farce and we can see right through you.

So... if the problem is that government told them what to do, is the solution to give government more power to tell them what to do?

[dannno]

So... if the problem is that government told them what to do, is the solution to give government more power to tell them what to do?



The point is this is all more nuanced and complicated than trolls like you make it out to be. The solutions are complicated, none of us know what to do.

But you trolls keep cheering on these companies for shutting people like Alex Jones down, when essentially, they were following the instructions the government gave them to shut them down which is a violation of free speech... and you are rooting it on. Then you pretend to be for free speech. It's all a fucking farce and we can see right through you...


What I do know, is that we shouldn't do nothing and allow people like Alex Jones to get shut down when we know this is the government violating their free speech.

You're cheering it on, so why listen to you?

[TheCount]

What I do know, is that we shouldn't do nothing and allow people like Alex Jones to get shut down when we know this is the government violating their free speech.

You're cheering it on, so why listen to you?

https://i.imgur.com/4nvICePh.jpg


Government is violating free speech; better give government more powers over free speech.

[Swordsmyth]

Indeed, the government can regulate the behavior of its own employees however it likes.

If they want to require the President to do a break-dance every morning on the White House lawn, they can do that.

If a person doesn't like the terms of employment, he need not apply for the job.
Courts don't get to legislate from the bench.

[dannno]

https://i.imgur.com/4nvICePh.jpg


Government is violating free speech; better give government more powers over free speech.

You really should just shut the fuck up, all you do is twist what other people say while you spout anti-liberty crap.

[r3volution 3.0]

Courts don't get to legislate from the bench.

I don't know what you mean.

The state must necessarily decide how to govern its own employees.

Who else would?

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know what you mean.

The state must necessarily decide how to govern its own employees.

Who else would?
The head of the executive branch (Trump) or Congress through legislation (which would have to be signed by Trump unless they had a 2/3 majority in both houses).

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Government is violating free speech; better give government more powers over free speech.


... all you do is twist what other people say while you spout anti-liberty crap.



Yep. It's his template. TheCount is an extreme progressive. He voted Obama twice. He voted Hillary 2016. He is posting here on behalf of the Open Society Foundations (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/). If I am wrong, then he is welcome to refute it.

[Anti Federalist]

A private company, like Facebook, is not Congress and private companies do not make laws. Those are called rules. Seriously, what is wrong with you people who want to limit private property rights of everyone because you don't like the political ideology of a few? Have some principals.

Already decided back in 1946.

SCOTUS ruled that even on private property, you still have First Amendment protections.

Marsh V. Alabama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama)

[Anti Federalist]

Yep. It's his template. TheCount is an extreme progressive. He voted Obama twice. He voted Hillary 2016. He is posting here on behalf of the Open Society Foundations (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/). If I am wrong, then he is welcome to refute it.

Be curious to see if he responds.

What say ye TheCount ?

[Danke]

Already decided back in 1946.

SCOTUS ruled that even on private property, you still have First Amendment protections.

Marsh V. Alabama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama)


People are always confused the ideal vs. reality. Think you have private property, try not paying property taxes and find out how quickly you don’t “ own” anything.

[TheCount]

You really should just shut the fuck up, all you do is twist what other people say

The uncomfortable feeling that you felt at the thought of answering my question, the feeling that's got you all pissed off, that would be cognitive dissonance.



while you spout anti-liberty crap.


Says the guy who ... is arguing for nationalization of private enterprise because of bans.

[Danke]

Yep. It's his template. TheCount is an extreme progressive. He voted Obama twice. He voted Hillary 2016. He is posting here on behalf of the Open Society Foundations (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/). If I am wrong, then he is welcome to refute it.


We we have so many progressives here trying to use ideal libertarian arguments against us. Being a realist does not mean your goal is against libertarianism . The current system needs repair, even if those repairs temporarily are not a purists libertarian society. That is why Rand Paul gets so much flack here. Ron is the goal, but politicians like Rand might get us there.

[r3volution 3.0]

The head of the executive branch (Trump) or Congress through legislation (which would have to be signed by Trump unless they had a 2/3 majority in both houses).

Okay...

The point is that the state will make these decisions, because no one else can by definition.

I realize you don't like how it's turned out, but you might try to be consistent.

[Swordsmyth]

Okay...

The point is that the state will make these decisions, because no one else can by definition.

I realize you don't like how it's turned out, but you might try to be consistent.
I am consistent, I have always been against judges legislating from the bench and I still say it is Trump's private account, I was just pointing out that even if it was an official government account the judge doesn't get to tell him he can't block people on it.

[TheCount]

Be curious to see if he responds.

What say ye @TheCount (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58229) ?

In the over 700 posts he's made about me, he has created five separate sets of invented origins for me, each as false as the one before it. It's kind of sad, actually. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?476016-Posting-on-Democratic-Underground-for-Fun-and-Spare-Change)

[Swordsmyth]

In the over 700 posts he's made about me, he has created five separate sets of invented origins for me, each as false as the one before it. It's kind of sad, actually. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?476016-Posting-on-Democratic-Underground-for-Fun-and-Spare-Change)
Even if true that wouldn't be as sad as your posting history.

[Brian4Liberty]

Although the quote was used to imply that, if you listen to it in context, it's clear that neither of them are suggesting additional regulation.

Neither I, Daniel or Ron has suggested government regulation. That is your straw man. Ron suggested lawsuits exposing these “private companies” as nothing more than organs of government.

But since you bring up “liberty”, let’s talk about limitations on that noble concept. While we strive for liberty for all, that does not mean we must bow down and surrender to every NGO, government funded, centrally managed, censorship bureau, as is what is happening now with Facebook and Twitter. “Liberty” is not exclusively a right of the plutocracy.

Ignore the big brother censorship at your own peril, unless your true agenda is to silence oppposition, such as that expressed by numerous libertarian-oriented outlets that have been shut down. That is the reality. Despite your obsession with Trump, the libertarian and principled voices are the ones that have been silenced.

[TheCount]

Neither I, Daniel or Ron has suggested government regulation. That is your straw man. Ron suggested lawsuits exposing these “private companies” as nothing more than organs of government.

Given the broad and diverse regulations that have been imposed on phone companies and utilities, this is the quote that gave me the impression that you were advocating government regulation of social media and/or other internet platforms:



Once all of that occurs, you have a situation like Facebook and Twitter. At risk of repeating myself, Twitter is more like a phone company now. Everyone has a Twitter address, like a phone number or email address. Celebrities, businesses, politicians, government entities, etc all advertise their Twitter address.

Is there an entity that can ban you from acquiring a phone number? Is there an entity that can block from gettting an email address? That is what Twitter and Facebook can now do.

Can a person live without a Twitter name? Can a person live without a Facebook account? Can a person live without a phone number? Can a person live without an email address? The answer to all of the above is “yes”, but it can be severely limiting depending upon one wants to do, especially if what they want to do is exercise “speech”.




But since you bring up “liberty”, let’s talk about limitations on that noble concept. While we strive for liberty for all, that does not mean we must bow down and surrender to every NGO, government funded, centrally managed, censorship bureau, as is what is happening now with Facebook and Twitter. “Liberty” is not exclusively a right of the plutocracy.

I haven't heard anyone make any of those strawman arguments.


No one said anything about bowing or surrendering. Instead, new options were created and there was much crowing about the supposedly imminent death of the various mainstream platforms. The howling began only after the various media creators and "influencers" who switched to those new platforms realized that the new options are nowhere near as profitable as the old platforms. This is why the argument has changed from 'create new spaces for free speech!' to 'force existing platforms to host my content!' If they'd been able to make anywhere near as much money on Gab or Voat or whatever, there would be no such movement. Instead, it turns out that 'Twitter for white nationalists' and 'Reddit for white nationalists' are not business proposals that generate much revenue. Thus began the final step in the transformation of the alt-right into a mirror image of the snowflake SJWs that they hate so much.


To me, the most hilarious part of it all is that the much of the same media which was devoted to decrying everything that is represented by modern media, Facebook, Google, loss of privacy, the marketing and sale of attention, and so on was entirely fueled by the money derived from the very things that they opposed.


Ignore the big brother censorship at your own peril, unless your true agenda is to silence oppposition

Big brother censorship? Opposition? Opposition to what, exactly? The whole reason that this 'regulate-the-internet' movement is gaining such traction is that it supports the narratives of the largest media outlet in the nation and the political party which controls all three branches of federal government in addition to the majority of state governments. It's hardly a put-upon dissident group.


such as that expressed by numerous libertarian-oriented outlets that have been shut down.

Have the outlets been shut down, or are publishers just refusing to distribute their content?


Despite your obsession with Trump, the libertarian and principled voices are the ones that have been silenced.

I think that the various social media companies have overreacted in many instances, having swung from largely laissez faire policies to being far too aggressive in dishing out bans after having realized that they had allowed their platforms to be turned into toxic cesspools (and that this might hurt their profits). I don't, however, think that the majority of 'whose who have been silenced' were either principled or libertarian.

[Swordsmyth]

Given the broad and diverse regulations that have been imposed on phone companies and utilities, this is the quote that gave me the impression that you were advocating government regulation of social media and/or other internet platforms:







I haven't heard anyone make any of those strawman arguments.


No one said anything about bowing or surrendering. Instead, new options were created and there was much crowing about the supposedly imminent death of the various mainstream platforms. The howling began only after the various media creators and "influencers" who switched to those new platforms realized that the new options are nowhere near as profitable as the old platforms. This is why the argument has changed from 'create new spaces for free speech!' to 'force existing platforms to host my content!' If they'd been able to make anywhere near as much money on Gab or Voat or whatever, there would be no such movement. Instead, it turns out that 'Twitter for white nationalists' and 'Reddit for white nationalists' are not business proposals that generate much revenue. Thus began the final step in the transformation of the alt-right into a mirror image of the snowflake SJWs that they hate so much.


To me, the most hilarious part of it all is that the much of the same media which was devoted to decrying everything that is represented by modern media, Facebook, Google, loss of privacy, the marketing and sale of attention, and so on was entirely fueled by the money derived from the very things that they opposed.



Big brother censorship? Opposition? Opposition to what, exactly? The whole reason that this 'regulate-the-internet' movement is gaining such traction is that it supports the narratives of the largest media outlet in the nation and the political party which controls all three branches of federal government in addition to the majority of state governments. It's hardly a put-upon dissident group.



Have the outlets been shut down, or are publishers just refusing to distribute their content?



I think that the various social media companies have overreacted in many instances, having swung from largely laissez faire policies to being far too aggressive in dishing out bans after having realized that they had allowed their platforms to be turned into toxic cesspools (and that this might hurt their profits). I don't, however, think that the majority of 'whose who have been silenced' were either principled or libertarian.

:upsidedown:The world turned upside down:upsidedown:

But we know to expect that from The Vampire.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yep. It's his template. TheCount is an extreme progressive. He voted Obama twice. He voted Hillary 2016. He is posting here on behalf of the Open Society Foundations (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/). If I am wrong, then he is welcome to refute it.



Be curious to see if he responds.

What say ye TheCount ?




No, of course he won't respond. Or, at least respond honestly. I have asked him these questions more than once. They're simple questions.

TheCount is as dishonest as the day is long.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

In the over 700 posts he's made about me, he has created five separate sets of invented origins for me, each as false as the one before it. It's kind of sad, actually. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?476016-Posting-on-Democratic-Underground-for-Fun-and-Spare-Change)


LOL. Nice red herring. Do you speak English?

Answer the questions.


Did you vote Obama for president 2008 and 2012?
Did you vote Hillary for president 2016?
Do you work for the Open Society Foundations?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Even if true that wouldn't be as sad as your posting history.


I challenge TheCount to bump that thread, but he won't because he's a shrewd chickenshit.

I proposed a bet several times to him with stakes that the loser leaves the forum for good. Same with Zip and PRB. None of them took me up on it.

Now what could these people possibly have to lose by leaving this forum?

[TheCount]

Bump