CDZ Do I have to allow you to post on my website?

[dblack]

The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.

What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.

And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.

Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

Nope. That's just untrue. You need to educate yourself on our system of government before you make useful comments on the topic.

 

[Syriusly]

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

So, the main thing is to keep your mouth shut. It's not what you do, but what you say that matters.

And it's not a freedom of speech issue how exactly?

You seem to be confused about 'freedom of speech'.

You have the freedom to speak as you wish- with certain crucial restrictions- you don't have the freedom to say- yell 'fire' in a movie theater- you also don't have the freedom to use speech to promote violations of the law.

Now I get it that you think that a home owner should be able to say he won't rent to blacks or Jews- but refusing to rent to someone because of their color or religion is a violation of Federal law.

You can always work to change that law if it offends you so much.

 

[Syriusly]

"For good or ill, the social-media sphere is the new public sphere. The expulsion of people from these platforms is to 2018 what a state ban on the publication or sale of certain books was to 1618. "

Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship

I do find this humorous- since Alex Jone's Infowars is quite happy to censor content from others.

Not surprising that the contard far right believes that corporate free speech only applies when the contards want access to a platform- not to their own platforms.

Typical right wing hypocrisy.

 

[dblack]

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

So, the main thing is to keep your mouth shut. It's not what you do, but what you say that matters.

And it's not a freedom of speech issue how exactly?

You seem to be confused about 'freedom of speech'.

The problem is that I apply the principle consistently. Not tailored to suit the situation or victims involved.

 

[Syriusly]

"There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."

"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "

Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship

LOL... now there's a source we can trust.

The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.
You just keep glossing over that, by pretending that the constitution only exists to protect people from the government. It certainly does that, but it also is the foundation upon which the laws of our country stand.

And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.

That is just stupid. Sorry- I don't know any other explanation.

You can refuse to let me stand on your house and shout out my free speech. You can refuse to allow me to set up my own mosque or temple in you backyard. You can refuse to sell me your gun because you think I might be an Arab.

All of those things relate to rights that the government cannot infringe upon- but you- or a business certainly have no obligation to facilitate.

And sedition is illegal- but of course it has to be actual sedition- not just what tinfoil crazy's consider criticism of the President to be.

 

[Syriusly]

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

So, the main thing is to keep your mouth shut. It's not what you do, but what you say that matters.

And it's not a freedom of speech issue how exactly?

You seem to be confused about 'freedom of speech'.

The problem is that I apply the principle consistently. Not tailored to suit the situation or victims involved.

Really- tell me how you apply that principle consistently- use actual examples.

 

[dblack]

It is illegal to advertise that you will only rent to Christians or that you won't rent to blacks or Jews- but it isn't illegal to rent to a Christian or not rent to someone who happens to be black or Jewish.

Of course when you tell the guy you won't rent to him because he is Jewish you are going to be having legal problems.

So, the main thing is to keep your mouth shut. It's not what you do, but what you say that matters.

And it's not a freedom of speech issue how exactly?

You seem to be confused about 'freedom of speech'.

The problem is that I apply the principle consistently. Not tailored to suit the situation or victims involved.

Really- tell me how you apply that principle consistently- use actual examples.

The current example will do. PA laws violate free speech. You're ok with that because you think the ends justifies the means. I don't. In fact, the "means" leads to exactly the kind of idiocy we're seeing in this thread.

 

[Picaro]

If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.

I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

Under this logic, everything is public domain. Tell me again why you are suddenly embracing total socialism?

Wrong again. They're perfectly free to purchase their own right of ways on the private markets and not use the publicly subsidized right of ways.

They do. Show one single example of FB using subsidized public anything.

The only 'socialist's here are the right wingers, who suddenly love socialism when it lines their pockets and increases their control of markets. The Kochs are a typical example, always making big noises about their 'Libertarian values and belief in free markets', while making billions off of stealing private property via hiding behind 'eminent domain' laws and government seizures of other people's private property without any real 'free market' on what they want to pay for land.

Nice rant. Unfortunately it has zero to do with the topic. FB does not use public anything. One more time, THE ISP IS THE ONE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS.

Another great example is none of them ever run around demanding an end to 'corporate personhood' scams and limited liability for corporations, a huge subsidy and welfare program for Wall Street and the 'business' lobby, along with the limits on short sales and the like.

Tell me again why you need to lie about who is 'embracing socialism' here? Obviously it's you 'free market' hypocrites.

Show one place where I am embracing socialism? You are directly calling for government control of private property for nothing more than they are doing something you do not like. On the other hand, you have not called for the same to be applied to any other business that provides the same exact service.

Yes, YOU are embracing socialist values because someone is not using their private property the 'right way' and advocating for governmental control of private property. Your entire post rambles on about things that have nothing to do with the actual topic or what you are supporting.

ye, we know ideologues re fine with censorship, and are suddenly fine with socialism when it suits their own interests. You think repeating yourself over and over again and sniveling out 'Socialists N Stuff!!!' makes it come true, a magical chant like Dorothy clicking her heels and waking up back in Kansas or something. Your concession speech here is duly noted, just like your last ones were. You obviously have no idea what public carriers are, since you avoid that issue like the plague; most 'libertarians' and 'freemarketers' do, for obvious reasons.

 

[FA_Q2]

You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.

You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.

ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

Under this logic, everything is public domain. Tell me again why you are suddenly embracing total socialism?

Wrong again. They're perfectly free to purchase their own right of ways on the private markets and not use the publicly subsidized right of ways.

They do. Show one single example of FB using subsidized public anything.

The only 'socialist's here are the right wingers, who suddenly love socialism when it lines their pockets and increases their control of markets. The Kochs are a typical example, always making big noises about their 'Libertarian values and belief in free markets', while making billions off of stealing private property via hiding behind 'eminent domain' laws and government seizures of other people's private property without any real 'free market' on what they want to pay for land.

Nice rant. Unfortunately it has zero to do with the topic. FB does not use public anything. One more time, THE ISP IS THE ONE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS.

Another great example is none of them ever run around demanding an end to 'corporate personhood' scams and limited liability for corporations, a huge subsidy and welfare program for Wall Street and the 'business' lobby, along with the limits on short sales and the like.

Tell me again why you need to lie about who is 'embracing socialism' here? Obviously it's you 'free market' hypocrites.

Show one place where I am embracing socialism? You are directly calling for government control of private property for nothing more than they are doing something you do not like. On the other hand, you have not called for the same to be applied to any other business that provides the same exact service.

Yes, YOU are embracing socialist values because someone is not using their private property the 'right way' and advocating for governmental control of private property. Your entire post rambles on about things that have nothing to do with the actual topic or what you are supporting.

ye, we know ideologues re fine with censorship, and are suddenly fine with socialism when it suits their own interests. You think repeating yourself over and over again and sniveling out 'Socialists N Stuff!!!' makes it come true, a magical chant like Dorothy clicking her heels and waking up back in Kansas or something. Your concession speech here is duly noted, just like your last ones were. You obviously have no idea what public carriers are, since you avoid that issue like the plague; most 'libertarians' and 'freemarketers' do, for obvious reasons.

I know what public carriers are. It is a cold hard fact that Facebook IS NOT A PUBLIC CARRIER. I have addressed that over and over and over again. Nowhere have I avoided that issue. The fact that you simply ignore that is not an example of concession, it is your inability to actually address that fact.

 

[Picaro]

Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.

Under this logic, everything is public domain. Tell me again why you are suddenly embracing total socialism?

Wrong again. They're perfectly free to purchase their own right of ways on the private markets and not use the publicly subsidized right of ways.

They do. Show one single example of FB using subsidized public anything.

The only 'socialist's here are the right wingers, who suddenly love socialism when it lines their pockets and increases their control of markets. The Kochs are a typical example, always making big noises about their 'Libertarian values and belief in free markets', while making billions off of stealing private property via hiding behind 'eminent domain' laws and government seizures of other people's private property without any real 'free market' on what they want to pay for land.

Nice rant. Unfortunately it has zero to do with the topic. FB does not use public anything. One more time, THE ISP IS THE ONE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS.

Another great example is none of them ever run around demanding an end to 'corporate personhood' scams and limited liability for corporations, a huge subsidy and welfare program for Wall Street and the 'business' lobby, along with the limits on short sales and the like.

Tell me again why you need to lie about who is 'embracing socialism' here? Obviously it's you 'free market' hypocrites.

Show one place where I am embracing socialism? You are directly calling for government control of private property for nothing more than they are doing something you do not like. On the other hand, you have not called for the same to be applied to any other business that provides the same exact service.

Yes, YOU are embracing socialist values because someone is not using their private property the 'right way' and advocating for governmental control of private property. Your entire post rambles on about things that have nothing to do with the actual topic or what you are supporting.

ye, we know ideologues re fine with censorship, and are suddenly fine with socialism when it suits their own interests. You think repeating yourself over and over again and sniveling out 'Socialists N Stuff!!!' makes it come true, a magical chant like Dorothy clicking her heels and waking up back in Kansas or something. Your concession speech here is duly noted, just like your last ones were. You obviously have no idea what public carriers are, since you avoid that issue like the plague; most 'libertarians' and 'freemarketers' do, for obvious reasons.

I know what public carriers are. It is a cold hard fact that Facebook IS NOT A PUBLIC CARRIER. I have addressed that over and over and over again. Nowhere have I avoided that issue. The fact that you simply ignore that is not an example of concession, it is your inability to actually address that fact.

And I have addressed the fact that Facebook uses public carriers to offer its services over and over and over again, and your inability to address that issue and simply ignore that fact. Your inability to do so is merely a function of being locked in by a silly ideological meme using circular reasoning. Right wingers love all kinds of socialist laws, they just refuse to admit it and make up weird arguments to hide it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.

What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.

And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.

Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

 

[koshergrl]

The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.

What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.

And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.

Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.

Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

 

[koshergrl]

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

 

[OldLady]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

I never thought of that. When no one was getting booted, it didn't matter that there was only one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

I never thought of that. When no one was getting booted, it didn't matter that there was only one.

It doesn't matter at all.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience

 

[OldLady]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

I never thought of that. When no one was getting booted, it didn't matter that there was only one.

It doesn't matter at all.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience

I know. And of course, anyone can still reach out and speak directly to, say the president, via email. Or phone to his office. Or even a snail mail letter. Or attend a protest in Lafayette Park and hold a sign.

I am personally glad that some of the hate groups are getting booted, although it is being done for the wrong reasons (to protect their pocketbook from liability) and it is pretty telling that NO ONE here is commenting on the fact that Antifa's D.C. account was pulled from Facebook prior to the protest last weekend. Fair is fair and FB applied the rules fairly.
The Right hates to admit that.

 

[dblack]

What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.

Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.

You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia

But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?

You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.

I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

And socialists proclaim everything to be the "public square". FTW!

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not wrong. The misunderstanding is yours, which is why we are in such a mess.

You don't understand the language.

The Constitution is very clear..it does not grant rights. We are born with rights, and they are not all listed in *laws*. And if you violate any of those rights, you are breaking the law.

No the Bill of rights prohibits the government from violating those rights
I can stop you from making a speech on my property any time I want to and that is not a violation of your first amendment rights

Absolutely.

But if you try to stop me from making a speech in the public square, that's a crime and you can go to jail.

But a website is not a public square

That's the argument.

It will fail.

No it won't

The only way to accomplish your goal of obligating a company that publishes a web site to adhere to the first amendment is to have that site classified as a public utility and it ain't gonna happen

Says you