do dems believe the censoring of conservative speech by social media giants is ok ?

[yidnar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

 

[aaronleland]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

 

[yidnar]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

what if a restaurants barred people because of their beliefs ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You’re not very observant.

If you were, you’d note that Democrats address the issue often, explaining to conservatives that censorship and the right to free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private entities and private persons, such as social networks.

That as private entities, social networks are a liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where such editing constitutes neither a ‘violation’ of free speech nor ‘censorship.’

And that the internet is infinite – that there’s ample opportunity for conservatives to express their views and opinions.

 

[Viktor]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of Twitter and Facebook. The first amendment does not apply to private property. This is a Sup Ct ruling. What I suggest as a tactic to pressure the media is to boycott them. They survive on advertising revenue. If we the consumers don't read those ads, the media will lose money bigtime.

 

[MisterBeale]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Media giants hell. . .

. . . any one holding a political bent to the left of JFK essentially believes it is OK to censor folks not only on the internet, but on college campuses, in the work place, in the regular media, hell, in all of polite society . . .

 

[yidnar]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You’re not very observant.

If you were, you’d note that Democrats address the issue often, explaining to conservatives that censorship and the right to free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private entities and private persons, such as social networks.

That as private entities, social networks are a liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where such editing constitutes neither a ‘violation’ of free speech nor ‘censorship.’

And that the internet is infinite – that there’s ample opportunity for conservatives to express their views and opinions.

if the left were being censored you would be rightfully against it .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

what if a restaurants barred people because of their beliefs ?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

 

[MisterBeale]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You’re not very observant.

If you were, you’d note that Democrats address the issue often, explaining to conservatives that censorship and the right to free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private entities and private persons, such as social networks.

That as private entities, social networks are a liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where such editing constitutes neither a ‘violation’ of free speech nor ‘censorship.’

And that the internet is infinite – that there’s ample opportunity for conservatives to express their views and opinions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

You’re not very observant.

If you were, you’d note that Democrats address the issue often, explaining to conservatives that censorship and the right to free speech concern solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private entities and private persons, such as social networks.

That as private entities, social networks are a liberty to edit their content as they see fit – where such editing constitutes neither a ‘violation’ of free speech nor ‘censorship.’

And that the internet is infinite – that there’s ample opportunity for conservatives to express their views and opinions.

if the left were being censored you would be rightfully against it .

If by un-Constitutional government preemption, of course.

But private social media sites are not the government, and are at liberty to edit content as they see fit.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

Do YOU?

Bakers Fined $135,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake Appeal to Supreme Court

The Oregon bakery couple that was fined 135,000 for not baking a custom cake for a lesbian wedding have appealed their case to the U S Supreme Court

www.christianpost.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of Twitter and Facebook. The first amendment does not apply to private property. This is a Sup Ct ruling. What I suggest as a tactic to pressure the media is to boycott them. They survive on advertising revenue. If we the consumers don't read those ads, the media will lose money bigtime.

Nothing ‘unfortunate’ about it.

Fortunately the First Amendment protects social media sites from unwarranted government preemption and regulation.

 

[aaronleland]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

what if a restaurants barred people because of their beliefs ?

That's fine by me. Do you think a baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I guess you do.

 

[mdk]

Take your business elsewhere if you find their business practices do not align with your beliefs.

 

[RodISHI]

A lot of people are migrating to Parler; and the left is attempting to gaslight Parler from every angle possible.

 

[RodISHI]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

It is not exactly a private company once it goes to public stock options. That difference needs to be addressed properly by Congress.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

How would they know? The complaints and investigations of the censorship get censored.

 

[aaronleland]

I think a private company serving whoever they want is their choice. Do you agree?

It is not exactly a private company once it goes to public stock options. That difference needs to be addressed properly by Congress.

Why not? Did somebody force you to buy stock in Twitter?

 

[MisterBeale]

A lot of people are migrating to Parler; and the left is attempting to gaslight Parler from every angle possible.

 

[Viktor]

i noticed that dems remain silent on the censorship being placed on conservatives by social networks ..... do they agree with censorship.

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of Twitter and Facebook. The first amendment does not apply to private property. This is a Sup Ct ruling. What I suggest as a tactic to pressure the media is to boycott them. They survive on advertising revenue. If we the consumers don't read those ads, the media will lose money bigtime.

Nothing ‘unfortunate’ about it.

Fortunately the First Amendment protects social media sites from unwarranted government preemption and regulation.

You don't know the law. In the case of a virtual monopoly like twitter and facebook have, the standards are different, just as they are for a public utility. Consumers have almost no choice but to use them and that makes them public. That's why their bosses are being called to appear before Congress. I expect some regulations in the near future.