Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

nsacpi said:
sure...didn't Florida just pass a law that imposes certain requirements on twitter and other platforms...likely to be thrown out by the courts...but it is definitely a government effort to involve itself in private company decisions...hopefully the federal government doesn't do anything like that
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution or BoR deny states that right?
 
Jaw said:
Where does the Constitution or BoR deny states that right?
Click to expand...

Thank you for making a point I've often made. The issues sturg gets exercised about are policy issues of how to regulate companies like twitter and facebook and yelp. They are regulatory issues. Not constitutional ones involving fundamental rights. I myself am not exercised about decisions made by the corporate leadership of these companies (except when they take down one of my restaurant reviews). Or laws passed by Congress or states, or executive actions concerning these companies. I enjoy Dr. Stella as much as anyone else, but don't presume to tell youtube what to do about her material and don't presume to tell Florida or the federal government what to do about youtube's decisions about Dr. Stella.

To quote Shakespeare, this seems to be a case of "noise and fury, signifying nothing." The full quote is even more apt, but I am trying to be kind this morning.
 
Last edited:
I believe the Constitution and First Amendment state that the federal government may not interfere with free speech issues. It doesn't make the same claim for the state.

"Congress shall make no law..."
 
Last edited:
Jaw said:
I believe the Constitution and First Amendment state that the federal government may not interfere with free speech issues. It doesn't make the same claim for the state.
Click to expand...

Ah. Ok. Well again I think we are in agreement. Los federales should be careful about regulating these platforms. There are first amendment issues that come into play.

I take it you also would object to a president using words like "enemies of the people" when characterizing organizations that did things that displeased him.
 
Sure. But I disapprove of a lot that presidents say. I like it much less when they put it into policy instead of just mean words
 
Btw the constitution also contains the 14th amendment:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
nsacpi said:
Btw the constitution also contains the 14th amendment:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Use of a private companies product is among the litany of privilege's granted by being a citizen of the united states?

If thats the case then they better start slashing prices on Range Rovers so everyone can afford them.
 
thethe said:
Use of a private companies product is among the litany of privilege's granted by being a citizen of the united states?

If thats the case then they better start slashing prices on Range Rovers so everyone can afford them.
Click to expand...

I believe we are in agreement as to whether private companies are entitled to decide on the price and content of what they provide. Subject to consumer protection regulations. I was upset when yelp took down my review, but I didn't think they were doing anything nefarious. Just protecting their brand against bad actors like me.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I believe we are in agreement as to whether private companies are entitled to decide on the price and content of what they provide. Subject to consumer protection regulations. I was upset when yelp took down my review, but I didn't think they were doing anything nefarious. Just protecting their brand against bad actors like me.
Click to expand...

Well what if the fine makers of Range Rover said if you believe X then you can get our top of the line model for 30k and if you don't believe in X you have to pay full price.

How about that decision?

What would you want the government to do in that case?
 
nsacpi said:
Btw the constitution also contains the 14th amendment:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

We know that the 14th wasn't meant that way because a decade later, Congressman Blaine repeatedly tried to get the Blaine Amendment passed in order to extend the First Amendment's restrictions on Congress to the states. Despite being closer to the War Between the States than we are to 9/11, he was unable to get the support needed.
 
thethe said:
Well what if the fine makers of Range Rover said if you believe X then you can get our top of the line model for 30k and if you don't believe in X you have to pay full price.

How about that decision?

What would you want the government to do in that case?
Click to expand...

In our wisdom (or lack thereof) we have created protected classes, on the basis of which companies can't discriminate. I'm not that familiar with the law but I believe the example you cite is legal. It is a stupid thing to do. But we libertarians are ok with a lot of stupid stuff. If someone didn't want to sell me a car cuz they thought I was a commie, I would find it hilarious more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Jaw said:
I'm going to guess that anyone unsupportive of CRT, race based college admissions, or affirmative action will be categorized as a white supremacist. Anyone to the right of John McCain will be considered far right. Anyone browsing online gun stores will be considered militia.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
Jaw said:
Lock him up, Big Tech

[tw]1419474477440712704[/tw]
Click to expand...

For anyone to dismiss this in the context of what happened on Jan 6th is amazing and just shows that they have no interest in knowing the truth. Just perpetuating their narrative.
 
You would be hard pressed to find any group that is more Republican than the FBI. These attempts to turn the FBI into a liberal organiation out to get Trump tards is hilarious. I guess now that the FBI has been exposed in this case the suspect are no longer leftists since I know they arent going with the narrative that the FBI entrapped leftists. Its always funny how when occasionally people think Trump is behind something and Republican propoganda media defends it but as soon as we find out Trump wasnt behind it they treat it as the worse thing ever and act like it was incredibly damaging to Trump that the accusation was made. Like the clearing of the protesters in from of the white house. I never heard one Trump tards say that was bad **** until the IG said it wasnt Trump. And before the Trump tards come in here to highstep. Do you believe all IG or just the ones who say what you want to hear?
 
board style manual recommends goose step over high step when referring to trumpophiles' manner of walking
 
nsacpi said:
Btw the constitution also contains the 14th amendment:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...



I wish we actually applied the constitution to our laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top