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

[frigidweirdo]

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!

This is the problem. People decide that "free speech" extends to private companies. It doesn't, not as far as the Constitution is concerned. That was designed to limit and empower the Federal govt.

 

[dblack]

With all the role reversal, I'm starting to see these threads as kind of a political Sadie Hawkins dance.

 

[flacaltenn]

Again.

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

Maybe they don't CARE about free speech. Maybe their business is to data-mine folks to make money and they want a "clean environment" to loll people into submission. Less conflict, more Zen. It's THEIR perogative whether SPEECH is even important to them. At USMB -- the Mod Staff is TOTALLY bought into free speech and opinion. That won't change while we're here UNLESS the invisible hand of ownership comes out of the heavens to smite us.

But youre assuming that other Soc Media give a ratz azz about it. They only care if it costs them numbers. BOYCOTT them. That's your recourse.

Do you remember how politically agnostic Bill Gates USED TO BE??? NEVER had lobbyists logging into the WH 520 times an Adminstration like the Obama folks did with FaceBook and Google. That ended when he got skewered for blocking competition. His COMPETITORS got Congress to torture and skewer him over hindering competition. He LEARNED to be politically DEFENSIVE. And he bought himself A LOT of beltway mouthpieces after that.

Facebook and Twitter are politically aware BECAUSE they are important political weapons. They SELL all the gold they mine out of you. Washington is NEVER gonna punish them in any meaningful way. The public has to do it if that's their will.

 

[flacaltenn]

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!

The NFL HAS put sanctions in place for this season. They are just chickenshit to enforce them because they are STILL negotiating with the player's union. It''s in the Game Day manual. NFL is not gonna back down. The military and pledge is a PART of the NFL brand.

Twitter could CUT the tweeter out of the hands of the Prez and there would be NOTHING he could do about it. He's the biggest troll ever to have an official throne. Only thing he could do is to start a competitor to Twitter and SPLIT their membership in half. That would cost less than he spends on plumbing/landscaping every 10 years at Mar A Lago.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This rightwing whining about FB doesn't change the fact that FB can't be compelled to host content, the fact that its refusal to host content in no manner violates free speech, and the fact that refusing to host content does not have the effect of silencing anyone or anything.

Yes, it can be compelled.

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.

Ignorant nonsense.

As already correctly pointed out – several times – the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations – such as a private web hosting site and a private person wishing to place content on that site.

Government does not ‘protect’ our rights; indeed, it’s often government that seeks to restrict or violate our rights – the purpose of the Constitution, its case law, and the courts is to afford citizens adversely effected by government actions the means by which to strike down or invalidate government’s effort to restrict or violate citizens’ rights.

Now, if Federal law was to be enacted making it illegal for Alex Jones to place his content on YouTube, where if he did so he’d be arrested, charged with a crime, and imprisoned – then you’d have an argument that Jones’ First Amendment rights were violated.

But absent government action or involvement, no free speech ‘rights’ have been ‘violated.’

 

[Picaro]

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!

I think Franklin or somebody said 'freedom of the press' only belongs to those who own the presses.

I happen to believe that in order to have a viable 'fourth estate' equal time is a necessary right re political speech, and I don't particularity care about anecdotal what if's or who it inconveniences. Of course, what is and what isn't 'political speech' can vary, but really only among dumbasses with zero common sense and discretion, like the ridiculously mentally ill clowns who actually think a neurotic sexual fetishist is in the same political 'rights' category as a black person re Constitutional definitions, for instance.

So how does one go about limiting the number of responses to a given political statement? Does every crank on the planet get space in your paper, newscast, or website? That raises issues of how much of a 'equal time' arrangement and who gets it is enough to pass muster, I guess, and open to debate. As far as 'public radio and television' go, they most certainly aren't abiding by 'equal time' voluntarily, and Congress needs to be providing some 'oversight' there, for sure. All airwaves are publicly owned, for that matter, but most presses are not publicly owned, and this presents more complications re equal time ideals.

 

[Picaro]

This rightwing whining about FB doesn't change the fact that FB can't be compelled to host content, the fact that its refusal to host content in no manner violates free speech, and the fact that refusing to host content does not have the effect of silencing anyone or anything.

Yes, it can be compelled.

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.

Ignorant nonsense.

As already correctly pointed out – several times – the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations – such as a private web hosting site and a private person wishing to place content on that site.

Government does not ‘protect’ our rights; indeed, it’s often government that seeks to restrict or violate our rights – the purpose of the Constitution, its case law, and the courts is to afford citizens adversely effected by government actions the means by which to strike down or invalidate government’s effort to restrict or violate citizens’ rights.

Now, if Federal law was to be enacted making it illegal for Alex Jones to place his content on YouTube, where if he did so he’d be arrested, charged with a crime, and imprisoned – then you’d have an argument that Jones’ First Amendment rights were violated.

But absent government action or involvement, no free speech ‘rights’ have been ‘violated.’

lol what rubbish; of course his speech rights have been violated.

 

[flacaltenn]

This rightwing whining about FB doesn't change the fact that FB can't be compelled to host content, the fact that its refusal to host content in no manner violates free speech, and the fact that refusing to host content does not have the effect of silencing anyone or anything.

Yes, it can be compelled.

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.

Ignorant nonsense.

As already correctly pointed out – several times – the rights enshrined in the First Amendment concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and organizations – such as a private web hosting site and a private person wishing to place content on that site.

Government does not ‘protect’ our rights; indeed, it’s often government that seeks to restrict or violate our rights – the purpose of the Constitution, its case law, and the courts is to afford citizens adversely effected by government actions the means by which to strike down or invalidate government’s effort to restrict or violate citizens’ rights.

Now, if Federal law was to be enacted making it illegal for Alex Jones to place his content on YouTube, where if he did so he’d be arrested, charged with a crime, and imprisoned – then you’d have an argument that Jones’ First Amendment rights were violated.

But absent government action or involvement, no free speech ‘rights’ have been ‘violated.’

Other 1st amendment rights get violated when they are conflict with "rights" granted to special groups. Like no govt interference in religion. Many states have laws that include non-discrimination against political association. That's as good as any Federally prescribed protection.

Can You Be Fired For Your Political Beliefs Or Activities? Maybe | HuffPost

So unless Twitter/Facebook et al were to claim exemption as "press" or some other FEDERAL protection -- it COULD BE that several states could go after them with the right motivation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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!

The NFL HAS put sanctions in place for this season. They are just chickenshit to enforce them because they are STILL negotiating with the player's union. It''s in the Game Day manual. NFL is not gonna back down. The military and pledge is a PART of the NFL brand.

Twitter could CUT the tweeter out of the hands of the Prez and there would be NOTHING he could do about it. He's the biggest troll ever to have an official throne. Only thing he could do is to start a competitor to Twitter and SPLIT their membership in half. That would cost less than he spends on plumbing/landscaping every 10 years at Mar A Lago.

Why is the military anything to do with the NFL? I fail to see any connection between the two.

 

[Picaro]

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!

The NFL HAS put sanctions in place for this season. They are just chickenshit to enforce them because they are STILL negotiating with the player's union. It''s in the Game Day manual. NFL is not gonna back down. The military and pledge is a PART of the NFL brand.

Twitter could CUT the tweeter out of the hands of the Prez and there would be NOTHING he could do about it. He's the biggest troll ever to have an official throne. Only thing he could do is to start a competitor to Twitter and SPLIT their membership in half. That would cost less than he spends on plumbing/landscaping every 10 years at Mar A Lago.

Yes, the players have clauses in their contracts, similar to contracts signed by nearly all entertainers re making public statements on the team's dime, which of course is during game and broadcast times.

 

[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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

Incorrect, the bakers served gays all day long what they refused to do is to use their artistic talent which is a form of expression to make a themed cake aka wedding cake. But no libtards won’t have that, the Baker was forced to use their artistic platform to bake that wedding cake. Libtards are hypocrites.

 

[Picaro]

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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

The bakers didn't 'exclude gays'. Quit lying about their stance; they refused all who had controversial stuff they wanted them to make, they didn't discriminate among sociopaths and deviants when it came to what they would do with their business, they refused to make nutjobs who wanted to use baked goods to 'send messages' or whatever; they were never refused services just because they were sicko homosexuals.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

Er..no.

They didn't exclude gays.

You're welcome..and stop lying.

 

[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.

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

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

The link is that they share the same idiotic misconception of rights. There's no such thing as a right to wedding cakes, and there's no such thing as a right to post on facebook. Rights protect us from government intrusion. They don't require other people to do things for us.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

The link is that they both share the same idiotic misconception of rights. There's no such thing as a right to wedding cakes, and there's no such thing as a right to post on facebook. Rights protect us from government intrusion. They don't require other people to do things for us.

Again.
There is a right to free speech.
If one of the primary modes of facilitating free speech is facebook and twitter, then by denying access to those things based on religion, politics, race, or sex, you are breaking the law.

Everybody uses facebook. Almost everybody uses twitter. They have become the way that people communicate. Therefore, deliberately restricting access because of race, sex, etc. is a crime.

Don't worry, the scotus is going to set you straight eventually.

 

[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.

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

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

The link is that they both share the same idiotic misconception of rights. There's no such thing as a right to wedding cakes, and there's no such thing as a right to post on facebook. Rights protect us from government intrusion. They don't require other people to do things for us.

Again.
There is a right to free speech.

And you don't have a clue what that means.

 

[Picaro]

The idea of 'public carriers' exemptions was created for businesses such as railroads, shipping, pipelines, canals,, and utilities, etc. The air waves, and utilities such as electric lines, phone lines, cell towers, wireless bands, etc. are covered by those concessions. The internet and the WWW itself are government creations and also covered by them, so as far as access is concerned all have to be treated equally. If Facebook is allowed to ban one category of political speech, then at the very least it has to ban all political speech, and the same for any other site or 'private' server.

Facebook's bandwidth isn't privately owned, and it agrees to certain restrictions when using public carriers; its servers being 'private' means squat re protected political speech. If it wants to build its own entirely private network, it's free to do so. It hasn't done so yet. It can buy rights of way to lay it's own private lines for its private network across private property at the regular market rates; if it wants to use public air waves, public wireless, public utility rights of way obtained through eminent domain privileges and benefits as a public carrier, then it can't ban protected speech. Good luck with that; it gets very expensive, very fast.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

The link is that they both share the same idiotic misconception of rights. There's no such thing as a right to wedding cakes, and there's no such thing as a right to post on facebook. Rights protect us from government intrusion. They don't require other people to do things for us.

Again.
There is a right to free speech.

And you don't have a clue what that means.

The left is pushing the false narrative that free speech = fascism, and that ending free speech = free speech.

It doesn't

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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?

I cant see a link between this and the bakers.
Facebook is open to anyone who follows their rules.
In the bakers case their rules excluded Gays.
Their rules were illegal, and immoral.
Its not the same thing at all.

The bakers didn't 'exclude gays'. Quit lying about their stance; they refused all who had controversial stuff they wanted them to make, they didn't discriminate among sociopaths and deviants when it came to what they would do with their business, they refused to make nutjobs who wanted to use baked goods to 'send messages' or whatever; they were never refused services just because they were sicko homosexuals.

They only excluded Gays.