Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

 

[BoSoxGal]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

Got your JD from the Cracker Jacks box, didn’t you?
You got the law and just about all the facts entirely wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

A professor should know that free speech applies to the government and not private enterprises

Wrong.
For example, a private enterprise can not fire employees who appear on TV to lobby for a cause or party that the company dislikes.
And Twitter is NOT a private enterprise because they use the PUBLIC internet, which has rules for the protection of individual rights.
Free speech has not only applied to government since 1868, when the 14th amendment was passed.

 

[BrokeLoser]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

USMB can ban me anytime it wants.
You wouldn't be crying "free speech!"

If USMB were the only message board available, they wouldnt be able to for expressing an opinion

Message boards would be liable for anything posted here. They'd have to shut down immediately, or be sued into insolvency.

Arguing to shut down 230 is arguing to shut down this board.

You’re sadly mistaken. That’s not at all how it works.
230 provides protection and immunity for web platform owners who allow third party content to be posted. If the web platform owner decides to publish the third party content they become publishers and they no longer qualify for 230 immunity.

Every single post here is 'third party content'.

Right...and USMB can’t arbitrarily publish the content without opening themselves up to potential lawsuits.

Not with 230 gone. As this message board is a text book 'interactive computer service'.

Without 230, they'd be personally liable for any post here. They'd have to shut down immediately, or be sued into non-existence.

I haven’t heard about a proposal to end 230. I’ve only heard of the revocation of 230 protection for companies that decide to act as publishers and not as open third party platforms.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

Got your JD from the Cracker Jacks box, didn’t you?
You got the law and just about all the facts entirely wrong.

{...

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

...}

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The 14th amendment is specifically aimed at protecting individual rights against any state, local, or individual violation.

 

[BertramN]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

If the deep end has a deeper end, the RWNJs are now going off the deeper end, having left behind the deep end four years ago.

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

of course they are,, what are you an idiot??

You are the idiot here, hands down.

.

and yet you fail to explain how,,,

that would make you the idiot for responding with nothing but noise,,

Your posts speak volumes, so no further explanations are necessary. Only you are blind to it.


.

Progressive is just butthurt that Trump surrendered and all the lies OANN and NewsMax told him about how the election was going to go turned out to be meaningless bullshit.

A nap, a cookie and a shower and he'll be right as rain.

After all that, will he be less boring?

.

There will be new conspiracies, I suppose.

You've got to give the conservatives credit on their creative writing skillz. JK Rowling has got shit on their election conspiracies. I mean, an international plot spanning a decade, Hugo "I've been dead since 2013" Chavez throwing the election, Phili mob bosses having gansters fill in ballots, North Korea boating ballots into Maine, Krackens, 'Big Ones'...hell, Rudy Gulliani even melted on camera once.

Throw in Optimus Prime and you've got a best seller.

The conspiracy theories must be created in a well funded conservative think tank. The trained experts there understand the RWNJs mental patterns and know exactly what form the conspiracy theory must take for a given situation.

They also discovered progressives must see solid evidence for all assertions, while a simple rumor quickly convinces conservatives of the conspiracy theory's veracity.

It's easy to understand the GOP's regular use of conspiracy rumors to distract their voter base's attention when reality begins to intrude.

.

Nah. Any dipshit with a wordpress blog can start a conspiracy theory if you've got people desperte to be lied to. There are entire conspiracies based on nothing but a second hand tweet.

Remember the 'Head of the CIA killed in fire fight with US military in Germany' conspiracy? That blithering horseshit made a brown stain as it circled the bowl for almost a month.

And it was all based on one SECOND HAND tweet.

FFS, the entire QAnon conspiracy is based on the predictions of a dude whose accuracy was WORSE THAN GUESSING. Do you know how bad you have to be at predicting to be outplayed by a Magic 8 ball?

But there are hundreds of thousands of those dipshits.

That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000.


.

.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

If the deep end has a deeper end, the RWNJs are now going off the deeper end, having left behind the deep end four years ago.

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

of course they are,, what are you an idiot??

You are the idiot here, hands down.

.

and yet you fail to explain how,,,

that would make you the idiot for responding with nothing but noise,,

Your posts speak volumes, so no further explanations are necessary. Only you are blind to it.


.

Progressive is just butthurt that Trump surrendered and all the lies OANN and NewsMax told him about how the election was going to go turned out to be meaningless bullshit.

A nap, a cookie and a shower and he'll be right as rain.

After all that, will he be less boring?

.

There will be new conspiracies, I suppose.

You've got to give the conservatives credit on their creative writing skillz. JK Rowling has got shit on their election conspiracies. I mean, an international plot spanning a decade, Hugo "I've been dead since 2013" Chavez throwing the election, Phili mob bosses having gansters fill in ballots, North Korea boating ballots into Maine, Krackens, 'Big Ones'...hell, Rudy Gulliani even melted on camera once.

Throw in Optimus Prime and you've got a best seller.

The conspiracy theories must be created in a well funded conservative think tank. The trained experts there understand the RWNJs mental patterns and know exactly what form the conspiracy theory must take for a given situation.

They also discovered progressives must see solid evidence for all assertions, while a simple rumor quickly convinces conservatives of the conspiracy theory's veracity.

It's easy to understand the GOP's regular use of conspiracy rumors to distract their voter base's attention when reality begins to intrude.

.

Nah. Any dipshit with a wordpress blog can start a conspiracy theory if you've got people desperte to be lied to. There are entire conspiracies based on nothing but a second hand tweet.

Remember the 'Head of the CIA killed in fire fight with US military in Germany' conspiracy? That blithering horseshit made a brown stain as it circled the bowl for almost a month.

And it was all based on one SECOND HAND tweet.

FFS, the entire QAnon conspiracy is based on the predictions of a dude whose accuracy was WORSE THAN GUESSING. Do you know how bad you have to be at predicting to be outplayed by a Magic 8 ball?

But there are hundreds of thousands of those dipshits.

That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000.


.

.

Dunning-Kruger?

 

[Rigby5]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

Got your JD from the Cracker Jacks box, didn’t you?
You got the law and just about all the facts entirely wrong.

{...

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

...}

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The 14th amendment is specifically aimed at protecting individual rights against any state, local, or individual violation.

Why did you cite the naturalization clause of the 14th amendment in a conversation about Twitter?

 

[Skylar]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

Flattening the curve was about preventing our hospitals from being overwhelmed and spreading out the cases.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

 

[Turtlesoup]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

it's a first amendment violation-----------------they are basically denying communication for anyone that they don't agree with. That's fascism and dangerous.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

Got your JD from the Cracker Jacks box, didn’t you?
You got the law and just about all the facts entirely wrong.

{...

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

...}

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The 14th amendment is specifically aimed at protecting individual rights against any state, local, or individual violation.

Why did you cite the naturalization clause of the 14th amendment in a conversation about Twitter?

I decided to quote the whole 14th amendment so I don't have to be careful about anyone thinking I edited out anything.
But if you point was that it was originally to prevent states from abusing ex-slaves, that is correct.
However, once states were caught violating rights, the SCOTUS has ruled that now all prohibitions against the federal government in the Bill of Rights, now apply against anyone trying to violate rights.
That included employers.

 

[Rigby5]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

Flattening the curve was about preventing our hospitals from being overwhelmed and spreading out the cases.

But making the epidemic last longer is a horrible idea because it allows it to spread wider and deeper, making it much harder to end.
Since the month long hospitalization is much longer than the illness normal 2 weeks, then spreading out the cases eventually overwhelms the hospitals even more.

With epidemics, speed is of the essence.
Even if the cases do not increase, with more time the cases will spread much further apart, making herd immunity impossible.
Herd immunity relies on local burn out of hosts.
If you slow it down, then the people will move around more, and the virus will be able to get at much more distant victims.
It is inherently incompetent and foolish.
Should never have been done.
And never has been done successfully in the past or by anyone.
Quarantine is done instead, because that works FAST.
You do contact tracing to prevent people from even becoming infectious.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

Got your JD from the Cracker Jacks box, didn’t you?
You got the law and just about all the facts entirely wrong.

{...

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

...}

14th Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The 14th amendment is specifically aimed at protecting individual rights against any state, local, or individual violation.

Why did you cite the naturalization clause of the 14th amendment in a conversation about Twitter?

I decided to quote the whole 14th amendment so I don't have to be careful about anyone thinking I edited out anything.
But if you point was that it was originally to prevent states from abusing ex-slaves, that is correct.
However, once states were caught violating rights, the SCOTUS has ruled that now all prohibitions against the federal government in the Bill of Rights, now apply against anyone trying to violate rights.
That included employers.

The only part that was relevant to the incorporation doctrine was this one sentence:

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.


And per the incorporation doctrine (specifically, the 'selective incorporation doctrine') it selective extends the Bill of Rights to the States.

Not to 'anyone'. And certainly not to private businesses.

 

[Skylar]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

Flattening the curve was about preventing our hospitals from being overwhelmed and spreading out the cases.

But making the epidemic last longer is a horrible idea because it allows it to spread wider and deeper, making it much harder to end.
Since the month long hospitalization is much longer than the illness normal 2 weeks, then spreading out the cases eventually overwhelms the hospitals even more.

With epidemics, speed is of the essence.
Even if the cases do not increase, with more time the cases will spread much further apart, making herd immunity impossible.
Herd immunity relies on local burn out of hosts.
If you slow it down, then the people will move around more, and the virus will be able to get at much more distant victims.
It is inherently incompetent and foolish.
Should never have been done.
And never has been done successfully in the past or by anyone.
Quarantine is done instead, because that works FAST.
You do contact tracing to prevent people from even becoming infectious.

As the overwhelmed hospitals in California and El Paso demonstrate, spreading it out is a solid idea. As you keep your ICU capacity at a functional level. They're rationing care now.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

Flattening the curve was about preventing our hospitals from being overwhelmed and spreading out the cases.

But making the epidemic last longer is a horrible idea because it allows it to spread wider and deeper, making it much harder to end.
Since the month long hospitalization is much longer than the illness normal 2 weeks, then spreading out the cases eventually overwhelms the hospitals even more.

With epidemics, speed is of the essence.
Even if the cases do not increase, with more time the cases will spread much further apart, making herd immunity impossible.
Herd immunity relies on local burn out of hosts.
If you slow it down, then the people will move around more, and the virus will be able to get at much more distant victims.
It is inherently incompetent and foolish.
Should never have been done.
And never has been done successfully in the past or by anyone.
Quarantine is done instead, because that works FAST.
You do contact tracing to prevent people from even becoming infectious.

As the overwhelmed hospitals in California and El Paso demonstrate, spreading it out is a solid idea. As you keep your ICU capacity at a functional level. They're rationing care now.

AS I just pointed out, spreading it out greatly increases the total the hospital accumulates over time.
And if we had NOT "flattened the curve" and let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended it in March, so then hospitals would not have accumulated so many patients over time.

And you NEVER have to or should ration care.
When approaching capacity, you just request FEMA emergency facilities, such as hospital ships that are still empty now.

 

[BertramN]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

If the deep end has a deeper end, the RWNJs are now going off the deeper end, having left behind the deep end four years ago.

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

of course they are,, what are you an idiot??

You are the idiot here, hands down.

.

and yet you fail to explain how,,,

that would make you the idiot for responding with nothing but noise,,

Your posts speak volumes, so no further explanations are necessary. Only you are blind to it.


.

Progressive is just butthurt that Trump surrendered and all the lies OANN and NewsMax told him about how the election was going to go turned out to be meaningless bullshit.

A nap, a cookie and a shower and he'll be right as rain.

After all that, will he be less boring?

.

There will be new conspiracies, I suppose.

You've got to give the conservatives credit on their creative writing skillz. JK Rowling has got shit on their election conspiracies. I mean, an international plot spanning a decade, Hugo "I've been dead since 2013" Chavez throwing the election, Phili mob bosses having gansters fill in ballots, North Korea boating ballots into Maine, Krackens, 'Big Ones'...hell, Rudy Gulliani even melted on camera once.

Throw in Optimus Prime and you've got a best seller.

The conspiracy theories must be created in a well funded conservative think tank. The trained experts there understand the RWNJs mental patterns and know exactly what form the conspiracy theory must take for a given situation.

They also discovered progressives must see solid evidence for all assertions, while a simple rumor quickly convinces conservatives of the conspiracy theory's veracity.

It's easy to understand the GOP's regular use of conspiracy rumors to distract their voter base's attention when reality begins to intrude.

.

Nah. Any dipshit with a wordpress blog can start a conspiracy theory if you've got people desperte to be lied to. There are entire conspiracies based on nothing but a second hand tweet.

Remember the 'Head of the CIA killed in fire fight with US military in Germany' conspiracy? That blithering horseshit made a brown stain as it circled the bowl for almost a month.

And it was all based on one SECOND HAND tweet.

FFS, the entire QAnon conspiracy is based on the predictions of a dude whose accuracy was WORSE THAN GUESSING. Do you know how bad you have to be at predicting to be outplayed by a Magic 8 ball?

But there are hundreds of thousands of those dipshits.

That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000.


.

.

Dunning-Kruger?

That says it all.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

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