The Bird is Freed

lol Elon was a savant when he leaned left

Sees the idiocy for what it is …. And he’s a dummy.

Amazing
 
sturg33 said:
Yes twitter operates by the laws of the countries they operate in.

In America, it is illegal for the government to censor social media companies
Click to expand...

Where in the constitution does it say that? I'm not saying I support that but where in the constitution does it say that twitter can host content that the government cannot regulate?
 
zitothebrave said:
Where in the constitution does it say that? I'm not saying I support that but where in the constitution does it say that twitter can host content that the government cannot regulate?
Click to expand...

Of.course you support it. You cheered it on at the time.

As for your dumb question, the constitution doesn't opine on what citizens or companies can do, instead it restricts what the government can do.

And luckily for this issue, you don't have to read far to see where it restricts the government from doing what you cheered on
 
zitothebrave said:
Where in the constitution does it say that? I'm not saying I support that but where in the constitution does it say that twitter can host content that the government cannot regulate?
Click to expand...

Yes the Constitution that was written 250 years specifically mentions social media on the Internet...
 
sturg33 said:
Of.course you support it. You cheered it on at the time.

As for your dumb question, the constitution doesn't opine on what citizens or companies can do, instead it restricts what the government can do.

And luckily for this issue, you don't have to read far to see where it restricts the government from doing what you cheered on
Click to expand...

Give me examples please specific passages.
 
Carp said:
Yes the Constitution that was written 250 years specifically mentions social media on the Internet...
Click to expand...

Congrats you figured it out. THere's nothing saying that the government doesn't have the right to dictate laws onto corporations. I'm not saying I think the government should tell twitter what to do. Nor do I think Elon has done ****all to change how they handle things like that. THis election cycle we'll find out if he's still there.
 
zitothebrave said:
Give me examples please specific passages.
Click to expand...

"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."

(Prepare yourself for the "they didn't make a law!" response)
 
sturg33 said:
"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."

(Prepare yourself for the "they didn't make a law!" response)
Click to expand...

So where in that does it say that the government cannot set laws that restrict places of congregation from doing things. I'm keeping it simple here, but aside from dealing with the religion side of things. what I'm going for is where does it say this? We've seen the government do this before.

Remember when I was talking about Net Neutrality, one of the tenets of it is keeping the internet free. Right now there's a legit argument that the US government can leverage ISPs to shut down services and ther'es nothing unconstitutional about it. It is like the Tik Tok ban, there' snothing unconstitutional about it. It's wrong, and they shouldn't do it but constitutionally there's nothing wrong with doing it. How is that different than meddling in Twitter (mind you I don't agree with you on the extent on meddling I'm just playing devil's advocate here)
 
zitothebrave said:
So where in that does it say that the government cannot set laws that restrict places of congregation from doing things. I'm keeping it simple here, but aside from dealing with the religion side of things. what I'm going for is where does it say this? We've seen the government do this before.

Remember when I was talking about Net Neutrality, one of the tenets of it is keeping the internet free. Right now there's a legit argument that the US government can leverage ISPs to shut down services and ther'es nothing unconstitutional about it. It is like the Tik Tok ban, there' snothing unconstitutional about it. It's wrong, and they shouldn't do it but constitutionally there's nothing wrong with doing it. How is that different than meddling in Twitter (mind you I don't agree with you on the extent on meddling I'm just playing devil's advocate here)
Click to expand...

It says it in the text. They cannot prohibit the free expression of Americans.

I don't get why its complicated for you. That they are doing it doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Thankfully Musk bought twitter so we aren't deprived of true info the government doesn't want you to see
 
sturg33 said:
It says it in the text. They cannot prohibit the free expression of Americans.

I don't get why its complicated for you. That they are doing it doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Thankfully Musk bought twitter so we aren't deprived of true info the government doesn't want you to see
Click to expand...

ANd using your example, of a socially interactive company with a global reach, how is this guaranteed? Does a Canadian have rights under the constitution?
 
zitothebrave said:
ANd using your example, of a socially interactive company with a global reach, how is this guaranteed? Does a Canadian have rights under the constitution?
Click to expand...

What is your question? A Canadian in this country is typically afforded the same rights as Americans, but is not legally bound to it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top