progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,637
- 38,405
if you dont know what rules theres no reason to continue this discussion with you,,What ruleswhats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.
However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.
I disagree.
You are not required to use facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.Show me a Supreme Court ruling punishing a company for doing what Twitter did.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.
Totally wrong.
ORIGINALLY, the first amendment was not just restricted to government, but only the federal government, and the states and cities were free to infringe as they wanted to.
But NOT after the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment "incorporated" individual rights as implied by the Bill of Rights, to be protected from ALL infringement, by anyone.
And Twitter most definitely is NOT a "private actor", but a public medium that is supported by the government created Internet. If Twitter wants to be private and make its own rules, then it should go make its own global network and stop using the public internet, because the public internet comes with rules against infringement of individual rights.
Twitter most certainly be capable of being prosecuted for violating individual rights.
Just not sure that applies in this particular case.
That is for the courts to decide.
Nope. The incorporation doctrine selectively extends the Bill of Rights to the States. Not to 'anyone'.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Neither the incorporation doctrine nor the 14th amendment have a thing to do with twitter or other private businesses. They are about extending the limitations on the federal government to the states.
That is wrong.
Look as cases like where companies were denying abortion rights to employees, or fired people who campaigned for certain candidates off work hours.
The 14 amendment no only prohibits state laws from being used to infringe upon individual rights, but also to uphold individual rights when states have failed to pass legislation that would defend individual rights.
If you go back to the original context of the the Reconstruction era, what you are suggesting is that there was no legal recourse to stop the KKK from extorting and murdering Blacks, because the KKK was not an official act by government. And clearly that is wrong. The feds sent in troops to arrest KKK type private groups.
The 'denying abortion rights to employees' was an ACA violation. Its a specific federal law that was being violated. It had nothing to do with the 'selective incorportion doctrine'. As it was a federal law....you don't need the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government. The constitution already did that.
You need to actually read the arguments being offered by Bingham and Howard when presenting the 14th amendment to congress. The states were flagrantly violating the rights of recentl released slaves. And they had no recourse as the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States. The express purpose of the 14th was to do exactly that: extend the bill of rights to the states.
A supreme court ruling Barron v. Baltimore prevented that, explicitly finding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The 14th was created to rectify that.
Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....
The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "
- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate
It was about restraining State power. Not about private busineses.
You're simply mistaken
There is no argument at all that the original point of the 14th amendment was only to prevent state violations of individual rights, and was specifically over ex-slave rights.
But the POINT is that put the federal government in the position of having jurisdiction over individual rights protection, and that is NOT at all limited. It can't be limited. And the SCOTUS has continually expanded its incorporation over time, to now also include all individual rights against abuse by ANYONE.
And it obviously had to be that way. NO ONE has the authority or right to ever abuse or infringe upon any individual rights at all.
The mistake you are making is that you think there has to be specific legislation authorizing federal protection of individual rights before any action could be prosecuted. That is not a correct understanding of law. Rights and protects are infinite. They do not have to be codified and really can't be since they are infinite. When rights not listed specifically are violated, such as rights to privacy, then the violator is still prosecuted under some more general statute.
So can employers punish political expressions?
Absolutely and definitely NOT!
That has always been totally and completely illegal.
You can not possibly have a democratic republic with fair elections if you allow any political extortion.
While legislators are slow to actually write the specific legislation, it is easy to see political extortion is illegal, and it could be prosecuted under dozens of more general existing legislation, and would even violate privacy rights.
Again, just as the SCOTUS used to allow slavery and no longer does, the interpretation of individual rights being supreme is always the goal of any democratic republic, and the fact that trend has been slow is only due to confusion over who should ensure those individual rights best.
Anyone who thinks individuals can legally abuse the inherent rights of others, just does not at all understand what a democratic republic is.
