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

[WillowTree]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

That is bull Crap!


Again


They have a right to protest
He has a right to comment

We have a right to boycott the ticket office and sponsors!

 

[flacaltenn]

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER you're commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

What football players "violated the RULES of their business time behavior"?

Go read the news man. Not fighting that battle here. You know exactly what dust-up I'm referring to. Top story on the Sports page since NFL Pre-Season started last night.

 

[Syriusly]

Only if we toss out the Constitution, which seems to be what the Trumpsters are after.

Another lie.

Our constitution absolutely provides for our government protecting our freedom of speech.

In fact, that is specifically and almost exclusively what our government is charged with.

No- sorry- the Bill of Rights says that Government cannot interfere with our freedom of speech.

It doesn't say that the government must protect your 'freedom of speech' on private platforms.

Certainly it doesn't say that either Infowars or Facebook have any obligation to let you post anything you want.

It isn't "interfering with freedom of speech" to stop people from suppressing free speech.

And shutting down Infowards isn't an example of *freedom of speech* lolol.It's an example of suppressing free speech.
Which of course, our government is obligated to protect.


You people are funny.

Why do you believe that our government is obligated to protect the speech of anyone- including racists like Infowars?

OMG!

Is that the sort of substantive response you are supposed to make in the CDZ?

If you believe that our government is obligated to protect the speech of anyone and everyone- please explain why you think so.

Under the Bill of Rights the government is forbidden from interfering in our freedom of speech.

That doesn't mean that the government has any obligation- or even authority- to tell the New York Times that they must print opinion pieces from the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

 

[flacaltenn]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

That is bull Crap!


Again


They have a right to protest
He has a right to comment

We have a right to boycott the ticket office and sponsors!

If :"they have a right to protest" means NFL players taking a knee AND
if "He has a right to comment" means anybody with an unpopular opinion on social media THEN

For the NFL case you claim private enterprise CAN'T regulate speech/behavior..
And for the Social Media case you claim they CAN'T regulate speech/behavior.

You're a different case. In this case your completely consistent. But you're just wrong...

 

[WillowTree]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

That is bull Crap!


Again


They have a right to protest
He has a right to comment

We have a right to boycott the ticket office and sponsors!

If :"they have a right to protest" means NFL players taking a knee AND
if "He has a right to comment" means anybody with an unpopular opinion on social media THEN

For the NFL case you claim private enterprise CAN'T regulate speech/behavior..
And for the Social Media case you claim they CAN'T regulate speech/behavior.

You're a different case. In this case your completely consistent. But you're just wrong...

Why? Do they not have a right to protest?
Does he not have a right to comment?
Do we not have a right to boycott?

 

[flacaltenn]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

That is bull Crap!


Again


They have a right to protest
He has a right to comment

We have a right to boycott the ticket office and sponsors!

If :"they have a right to protest" means NFL players taking a knee AND
if "He has a right to comment" means anybody with an unpopular opinion on social media THEN

For the NFL case you claim private enterprise CAN'T regulate speech/behavior..
And for the Social Media case you claim they CAN'T regulate speech/behavior.

You're a different case. In this case your completely consistent. But you're just wrong...

Why? Do they not have a right to protest?
Does he not have a right to comment?
Do we not have a right to boycott?

1)No right exists
2)No right exists
3)Yes right exists

1)NFL work rules state every behavior and action during the pre-game ceremonies. Violation of contract.
2) Terms of Service you agreed to give them the ability to make the rules of content and social engagement.
3) Go for it. When everybody is boycotting everything maybe they'll STOP ADVERTISING and ruining our Football viewing and Social Media surfing experience.

 

[WillowTree]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

That is bull Crap!


Again


They have a right to protest
He has a right to comment

We have a right to boycott the ticket office and sponsors!

If :"they have a right to protest" means NFL players taking a knee AND
if "He has a right to comment" means anybody with an unpopular opinion on social media THEN

For the NFL case you claim private enterprise CAN'T regulate speech/behavior..
And for the Social Media case you claim they CAN'T regulate speech/behavior.

You're a different case. In this case your completely consistent. But you're just wrong...

Why? Do they not have a right to protest?
Does he not have a right to comment?
Do we not have a right to boycott?

1)No right exists
2)No right exists
3)Yes right exists

1)NFL work rules state every behavior and action during the pre-game ceremonies. Violation of contract.
2) Terms of Service you agreed to give them the ability to make the rules of content and social engagement.
3) Go for it. When everybody is boycotting everything maybe they'll STOP ADVERTISING and ruining our Football viewing and Social Media surfing experience.

Number one false because the NFL has verbally agreed that no punishment will be levied for this breach of contract so they have been given the right. Number two Trump has the first amendment to back up his right to free speech as does the NFL players and Alex Jones for that matter. Number three thanks, for a minute there I thought you were going to force me to buy a ticket!

 

[koshergrl]

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER your commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.Their free speech is not impinged by ending their ability to squelch the free speech of others. They can say anything they like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and should be stopped.

And let's not confuse "free speech" with "it's okay to slander and libel and commit fraud in order to overthrow the US government".

Libel is not considered *free speech* and in fact is a lie.

Lies that one tells while perpetrating a fraud are not *free speech* and if they are told/spread for the purpose of breaking a law...for example...to discredit the president, or a particular news source, are not *protected* speech.

And fake press who call themselves *journalists* but who are busted again and again lying and hiding information for the purpose of destroying the credibility of REAL journalists, or for the purpose of overthrowing a president or government...are not *off limits* when it comes to prosecution. Just because they're speaking doesn't mean that they can say anything they want and have it be protected speech. You can't tell people lies about a business or a person for the purpose of causing financial or political harm to that person, and call it *free speech*. It isn't. It's actually ILLEGAL to do that.

 

[dblack]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

Another irrelevant and completely bizarre post.

Who is pretending to be libertarian?

Not you. But it's often a thing with Republicans. Only when they're not in power, of course.

 

[koshergrl]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

Another irrelevant and completely bizarre post.

Who is pretending to be libertarian?

Not you. But it's often a thing with Republicans. But only when they're not in power.

Whatever. Completely irrelevant.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

 

[Crepitus]

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

And then we'll have to address the "Jewish problem".

They aren't a problem because they're Jewish.
They're a problem because they're progressives.

Just like the Nazis weren't a problem because they were white, or even because they were nazis.
The nazis were a problem because they were PROGRESSIVES.

Nazis were extreme right-wingers.

 

[koshergrl]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

That is bull Crap!


Again


They have a right to protest
He has a right to comment

We have a right to boycott the ticket office and sponsors!

If :"they have a right to protest" means NFL players taking a knee AND
if "He has a right to comment" means anybody with an unpopular opinion on social media THEN

For the NFL case you claim private enterprise CAN'T regulate speech/behavior..
And for the Social Media case you claim they CAN'T regulate speech/behavior.

You're a different case. In this case your completely consistent. But you're just wrong...

Yeah I run into this with leftists all the time.

I think your mind just wasn't given what it needed at the critical points of development to allow you to understand the very concept of *rights*.

For the bosses of the NFL to tell their idiots that they can't take a knee during game time is not a violation of their *free speech* because it does not prevent them from voicing their objections at all, nor does it deny them something that is commonly available to everybody else. There are other venues available to them..the same venues that are available to us all. Everybody doesn't depend on NFL games to voice their opinions, and every player can immediately take to twitter, facebook, or to the town square, or to radio....to make their views known. If the ONLY way to be heard is to take a knee during NFL games then yes, it would be a violation of the players' right to free speech if they were denied that right.

But it isn't.

 

[dblack]

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and therefore should be stopped.

I doesn't sound like you understand the meaning of politically protected rights like free speech. It's a prohibition on government interference. It doesn't mean other people have to listen to you. Or publish your opinions on their website. Or print them in their newspapers. It just means that government isn't allowed to interfere. Which is what you actually want it to do.

 

[WillowTree]

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and therefore should be stopped.

I doesn't sound like you understand the meaning of politically protected rights like free speech. It's a prohibition on government interference. It doesn't mean other people have to listen to you. Or publish your opinions on their website. Or print them in their newspapers. It just means that government isn't allowed to interfere. Which is what you actually want it to do.

But then people have to bake cakes for you don’t they?

 

[koshergrl]

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

And then we'll have to address the "Jewish problem".

They aren't a problem because they're Jewish.
They're a problem because they're progressives.

Just like the Nazis weren't a problem because they were white, or even because they were nazis.
The nazis were a problem because they were PROGRESSIVES.

Nazis were extreme right-wingers.

Also irrelevant...and also not true.

Let's move beyond this. The entire world has figured out what the nazi left have done with the "NAZI NAZI NAZI" thing..trying to conflate free speech rallies with nazism.

It was ridiculous from the beginning, and you had a good run with antifa and all that...but now people have figured out who the nazis are. You should stop trying to push that false narrative, because it's just..not...working.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

And they're all owned by a small handful of people working overtime to squelch free speech.

And CNN is actively communicating with twitter trying to get them to shut down free speech so that our country will be forced to use cnn as a mouthpiece. In their dream world, every bit of information is filtered through Acosta.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

And they're all owned by a small handful of people working overtime to squelch free speech.

Twitter still.kets both Jones and tRump tweet, and as far as I know Jones hasn't been removed from any of the rest.

Facts matter.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

And they're all owned by a small handful of people working overtime to squelch free speech.

Twitter still.kets both Jones and tRump tweet, and as far as I know Jones hasn't been removed from any of the rest.

Facts matter.

Facts don't matter to you. Don't lie.

Meanwhile, the fake press is working hard to silence the real press:

Twitter says InfoWars hasn't 'violated our rules.' It looks like that's not the case

 

[Toronado3800]

Another double standard from the left. Try banning black people from posting on your website and see what happens.

Ok. So by small government stardards we should use the law to FORCE Facebook to allow any post?