Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think being a State Actor is evil....with that said, I am not on tweeter, but anyone that tried to repost the story about Hunter Biden had their first amendment rights violated by the State Actor.You are only looking at one thing, the evil State Actor. The question remains what right of yours is the evil State Actor violating? In the first case it was the right to not be denied service. In the other case the plaintives alleged that because of funding the private school was in effect a public school and so they would be acting as a State Actor and the state can't violate your first amendment rights. They lost that case because you have no first amendment right at a private place of employment where no one from the government is making any firing or hiring decisions.
Do you recognize that you have no first amendment rights on someone else's property? And that you don't suddenly get any because they decide to work with law enforcement? Facebook can't be said to be violating your first amendment rights as a State Actor if no one from the state forced Facebook to do anything because you have no first amendment rights on Facebook. Facebook chose themselves to limit content just like the entity in the last case chose themselves to fire those employees over their speech. If the FBI tried to strong arming Facebook into limiting your content that would be a violation of Facebook's rights, not yours.
You don't seem to know....
They certainly can, and publish whatever they want.A private site can decide what wild claims they will accept
If you think you have a first amendment right to post on Twitter you're mistaken. You don't.I don't think being a State Actor is evil....with that said, I am not on tweeter, but anyone that tried to repost the story about Hunter Biden had their first amendment rights violated by the State Actor.
No you don't. If I become an informant for the FBI you don't suddenly have a right to use my lawn as your personal soap box.You keep going back to this otehr people property....agreed, you don't....but when that person is a state actor you do.
You don't.You don't seem to under stand the State Actor Doctrine....that's fine...continue to be clueless
That is not what happened is it?A private site can decide what wild claims they will accept
The problem for you is that the government didn’t direct anyone to take down the laptop story.I don't think being a State Actor is evil....with that said, I am not on tweeter, but anyone that tried to repost the story about Hunter Biden had their first amendment rights violated by the State Actor
A private site can ask for any assistance they wantThat is not what happened is it?
No. A private site that worked closely with government agents and party affiliates to control information.
If you want to excuse that away... and think it is okay to do that... you are not who I thought you were.
I don't watch Fox News. I gave that up several-several years ago.
And the reason I don't is because it is absolutely an information arm for the Republicans and conservative interest. I have ZERO doubt they get all kinds of information from the GOP party itself, as well as Republican House members, Governors ect. No doubt.
And that is not okay with me.
CNN/MSNBC is the mirror image of Fox. Again, I have no doubt they work directly with Democrats and the party in what they present. No doubt.
And that is not okay with me.
Facebook/Twitter is a public information site. More people get information from these two sites than Fox and CNN?MSNBC combined. Easily.
Those two companies working directly with party leaders/elected officials on what to allow and not to allow is the end of our Democracy.
And that is not okay with me.
Yet amazingly he didn't use these kickbacks to buy a new computer.Well, the Big Guy isn't his grandfather.....and moreover at the time of this, they maintained a family estate in Delaware. When you are getting kick backs from foreign nations, like China, you can afford different homes.
Did they? Seems that you’re taking taking it five or six further than the facts available.private site that worked closely with government agents and party affiliates to control information.
1) when did I say that? I don't believe I do, unless Tweeter was acting as a State Actor. Please try and keep up.If you think you have a first amendment right to post on Twitter you're mistaken. You don't.
No you don't. If I become an informant for the FBI you don't suddenly have a right to use my lawn as your personal soap box.
You don't.
if there is an email from someone in the government asking for him to be removed, than it is a violation of his rights, no matter the platform. ooops. NarcissistYou don't have first amendment protected speech on Twitter. The court ruled that what was violated was his right to service. You don't seem to understand the case at all. You are so focused on the State Actor portion that you've lost sight of the other relevant material.
Hunter has admitted the laptop is his when he sent his attorneys to try to get it back from the FBI, Simp.Sounds rather ridiculous.
Back when I lived in Texas and my grandfather lived in South Carolina, I didn't drop off dry cleaning in Columbia.
What you call stupid is actually just being able to tell the difference between facts and right wing internet garbage.Stay stupid. It's what you do best.
They didnt have to directly tell them, they were engaged in a symbotic relationship.The problem for you is that the government didn’t direct anyone to take down the laptop story.
Taibbi admits this.
how do you know? That could explain why he never came back to get this one.Yet amazingly he didn't use these kickbacks to buy a new computer.
Strange; don't you think?
This is the part where you make up yet another fantasy about why Hunter was not going to buy a new computer with his zillions of dollars in funny money.
Its what you guys do...hop to it sonny.
If the FBI could prove that posts were coming from Russia they had legitimate reasons to monitor them. If the FBI had legitimate beliefs that things were being posted to promote what happened on Jan 6, happening again, they had a legitimate reason to monitor that.
If they threatened media to remove posts that were simply partisan in manner then there is a complaint. So far we have not seen any evidence of that.
What an incredibly vague and useless article.
FBI warning of Russian disinformation is what was reported.
I comprehended what was in the article.I would suggest a reading for comprehension class for you.
