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

[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 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.

No, they didn't exclude anybody.

Stop lying or I'm going to report you for spamming, ding dong.

 

[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 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.

Im sorry but they are two very different things.

One is about who they are and the other is about what they have done. If the Gays had done something illegal or anti social then it would be a fair comparison.

They didnt.

 

[Picaro]

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.

No, they didn't exclude anybody.

Stop lying or I'm going to report you for spamming, ding dong.

Tommy never bothered to read the trial testimony, you know all the stuff the MSM left out of their 'reporting' because it didn't fit the narratives the sicko 'activists' and their shills were running around claiming for years, like Tommy.

 

[koshergrl]

This is why zuckerberg and the rest of the anti-free speech people want to shut down infowars, and proud boys, and any other real press...

Because they're obviously fascists and infowars keeps publicizing it.

 

[dblack]

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.

Sing it, comrade.

 

[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.

Sing it, comrade.

Resident Commie trolls in the CDZ. lol obviously no rebuttal from you, right Commissar?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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!

Bake the cake, Zuck

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

 

[JakeStarkey]

If FB has to host Alex Jones without comment, then Alex Jones should have to host me without comment.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.

Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.

 

[Toronado3800]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

I don't entirely disagree.

Just to stir the pot, doesn't that mean we're using a (possibly good) big government regulation to force Facebook to alllw free speech on their private property?

 

[FA_Q2]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

AFAIK, you certainly can.

Though the term would be hire. Can you cite a single example where a private citizen was prosecuted for discrimination when hiring a service provider?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

AFAIK, you certainly can.

Though the term would be hire. Can you cite a single example where a private citizen was prosecuted for discrimination when hiring a service provider?

Why cant the homeowner rent to a Christian plumber?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

This is more ignorant nonsense.

The right to free speech means that government cannot preempt, limit, or restrict speech inconsistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

Private entities such as FB are at liberty to do so because they lack the authority and capacity to punish individuals through force of law, where those who engage in speech the government is opposed to are subject to criminal prosecution and subject to fines and imprisonment.

“Everybody uses Facebook” doesn’t mitigate this settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law that is beyond dispute.

And yet again: absent government involvement, there is no ‘violation’ of free speech or expression.

The only reason conservatives are making this an ‘issue’ is because it’s hateful rightwing bigotry and racism that’s being removed from private hosting sites, having nothing to do with conservatives’ ‘concern’ for free speech or free expression.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

AFAIK, you certainly can.

Though the term would be hire. Can you cite a single example where a private citizen was prosecuted for discrimination when hiring a service provider?

Why cant the homeowner rent to a Christian plumber?

My bad. I read that entirely wrong. I was thinking that you were talking about hiring one to do some plumbing work, not that you were talking about renting a home to someone specific.

You are correct, you could not require a specific religion or any other protected status when renting a home.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws prohibit discrimination against entire classes of persons, such as race, religion, or sexual orientation – not specific individuals.

And Federal public accommodations laws have no provision for political beliefs – hotels, restaurants, and FB are at liberty to refuse to accommodate someone because of his political beliefs, so don’t bother trying to make that failed argument.

FB/YouTube removing Alex Jones’ content violates neither First Amendment free speech rights nor public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you own a home, you can't advertise that you would prefer to rent to a "Christian plumber" so Facebookburning needs to be punished for banning Alex Jones

I don't entirely disagree.

Just to stir the pot, doesn't that mean we're using a (possibly good) big government regulation to force Facebook to alllw free speech on their private property?

This question is moot because it responds to the same false comparison fallacy.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination based on factors such as race or religion are regulatory policy intended to safeguard the local markets and all other interrelated markets; where businesses that discriminate based on race or religion would be disruptive to the markets.

Again, public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to with the First Amendment or free speech.

Consequently, there are no legal or Constitutional grounds that would ‘justify’ government to ‘force’ a private web hosting site to accommodate certain content – nor would we want that to be the case.

That the authoritarian right wants government to force private hosting sites to accommodate content comes as no surprise, of course.

 

[Flopper]

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!

If you own a website, you can control who get's to post.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

That's a telling question and maybe why you don't understand the outrage.. The Nation anthems are a regular feature worldwide at sporting events of national significance. It's a moment to put aside disunity and declare that we are NOT IN REBELLION to our countries. The military presence is provided by color guards or heroes or even impressive fly-overs because we HONOR those who make the most visible sacrifices for this country. This even applies to LOCAL and regional heroes in the emergency services. It's not too much to ask to show that you are NOT in rebellion and not giving up on the system.

The NFL is in the ENTERTAINMENT biz. Sporting events are the ONE type of national event that consistently draws both sides of the tribal political wars and it's important to remind folks of that unity. As opposed to say the Oscars and other ceremonies where REBELLION runs rampant. Not to mention Washington DC Correspondence Dinner and other "TV entertainment" like "The View".

The folks that OWN the sporting franchises like the NFL and NASCAR have made the calculated decision to INCLUDE this statement of non-partisan support of the USA in there programming.

 

[strollingbones]

People should be able to do what they want with their property. Period.
Its THEIR property.

you really need to rethink that statement....should you allow half way houses for sex offenders next to schools?
would you allow a nudist club next to a church? the list is endless..there are reasons that zoning exists