Private Industry Can Not Abridge Freedom of Speech

[bettwice33]

This is simple. Congress is the lawmaking body. Judges can not make laws. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can not make laws. As the lawmaking body, Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech. Since we the people stand above all of our enemy, public servant judges as the highest authorities, we can exercise our authority and fire every judge in the country for violating the 1st amendment by allowing any sort of censorship.
The catch here is that we have to form an organization of we the people that's large enough to compel our cops to arrest the judges or they will protect the judges.
There is no penalty in the Constitution for judges violating it. We have to rewrite it and add in some penalties.
Public opinion can also force the judges to stop Facebook, YouTube, Twittter and anyone else from violating the 1st amendment. So talk about this.

 

[BrokeLoser]

This is simple. Congress is the lawmaking body. Judges can not make laws. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can not make laws. As the lawmaking body, Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech. Since we the people stand above all of our enemy, public servant judges as the highest authorities, we can exercise our authority and fire every judge in the country for violating the 1st amendment by allowing any sort of censorship. The catch here is that we have to form an organization of we the people that's large enough to compel our cops to arrest the judges or they will protect the judges. There is no penalty in the Constitution for judges violating it. We have to rewrite it and add in some penalties. Public opinion can also force the judges to stop Facebook, YouTube, Twittter and anyone else from violating the 1st amendment. So talk about this.

Translation:
"I hate the First Amendment, I support private enterprises who stop people from saying things that hurt my feelings.
Free speech for all who only say things that I want/need to hear."

 

[Oddball]

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

In Marsh v. Alabama (1946) the Court held that a person distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company town” was protected by the First Amendment rights.

mtsu.edu

 

[Crepitus]

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

In Marsh v. Alabama (1946) the Court held that a person distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a “company town” was protected by the First Amendment rights.

mtsu.edu

But not that they could do it in the company newspaper, with would be more the issue here.

 

[BULLDOG]

This is simple. Congress is the lawmaking body. Judges can not make laws. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can not make laws. As the lawmaking body, Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech. Since we the people stand above all of our enemy, public servant judges as the highest authorities, we can exercise our authority and fire every judge in the country for violating the 1st amendment by allowing any sort of censorship.
The catch here is that we have to form an organization of we the people that's large enough to compel our cops to arrest the judges or they will protect the judges.
There is no penalty in the Constitution for judges violating it. We have to rewrite it and add in some penalties.
Public opinion can also force the judges to stop Facebook, YouTube, Twittter and anyone else from violating the 1st amendment. So talk about this.

Sure. We can talk about how batshit crazy you are to think you can fire every judge in the country. That's just stooooopid.

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech.

Who owned the press in those days? Private industry.

 

[bettwice33]

This is simple. Congress is the lawmaking body. Judges can not make laws. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can not make laws. As the lawmaking body, Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech. Since we the people stand above all of our enemy, public servant judges as the highest authorities, we can exercise our authority and fire every judge in the country for violating the 1st amendment by allowing any sort of censorship.
The catch here is that we have to form an organization of we the people that's large enough to compel our cops to arrest the judges or they will protect the judges.
There is no penalty in the Constitution for judges violating it. We have to rewrite it and add in some penalties.
Public opinion can also force the judges to stop Facebook, YouTube, Twittter and anyone else from violating the 1st amendment. So talk about this.

Sure. We can talk about how batshit crazy you are to think you can fire every judge in the country. That's just stooooopid.

Before I press the "ignore" button I'll give you one chance to respond like an adult. Who are the authorities in the United States?

 

[bettwice33]

Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech.

Who owned the press in those days? Private industry.

Did anyone own all of the soap boxes?

 

[ESay]

The social media are private businesses which can choose the way how their operate their property. So called conservatives here defended a private bakery for not serving a gay couple, because the owners couldn't serve them basing on their principles. But at the same time, they dismiss the right of other private businesses to do the same. That is quite strange, isnt it?

 

[bettwice33]

The social media are private businesses which can choose the way how their operate their property. So called conservatives here defended a private bakery for not serving a gay couple, because the owners couldn't serve them basing on their principles. But at the same time, they dismiss the right of other private businesses to do the same. That is quite strange, isnt it?

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all banned me for citing the Declaration of Independence. Let's skip the gay agenda and talk about genuine problems.

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech.

Who owned the press in those days? Private industry.

Did anyone own all of the soap boxes?

Printing presses were expensive. They were free to be as partisan as they liked. Still are.

 

[BlindBoo]

The social media are private businesses which can choose the way how their operate their property. So called conservatives here defended a private bakery for not serving a gay couple, because the owners couldn't serve them basing on their principles. But at the same time, they dismiss the right of other private businesses to do the same. That is quite strange, isnt it?

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all banned me for citing the Declaration of Independence. Let's skip the gay agenda and talk about genuine problems.

Did you lie about the DOI?

 

[ESay]

The social media are private businesses which can choose the way how their operate their property. So called conservatives here defended a private bakery for not serving a gay couple, because the owners couldn't serve them basing on their principles. But at the same time, they dismiss the right of other private businesses to do the same. That is quite strange, isnt it?

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all banned me for citing the Declaration of Independence. Let's skip the gay agenda and talk about genuine problems.

My post wasnt about gay agenda at all. It is about allowing private owners to operate their businesses. You are either for allowing that or not.

 

[colfax_m]

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all banned me for citing the Declaration of Independence.

Somehow I feel there’s something more to this story and I doubt we will get the full truth from an involved party.

At the end of the day, your content on social media exists and is promoted by the property (servers) of those companies at their expense.

It’s obvious that they should get to chose what they use that property to say.

 

[bettwice33]

Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech.

Who owned the press in those days? Private industry.

Did anyone own all of the soap boxes?

Printing presses were expensive. They were free to be as partisan as they liked. Still are.

Would our Founders have said that our enemies could own all of the TV networks if they had foreseen TV?

 

[Rambunctious]

The SCOTUS will have to weigh in...and soon....

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech.

Who owned the press in those days? Private industry.

Did anyone own all of the soap boxes?

Printing presses were expensive. They were free to be as partisan as they liked. Still are.

Would our Founders have said that our enemies could own all of the TV networks if they had foreseen TV?

I can't speculate on a false claim such as that.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Congress has not amended the 1st amendment to say that private industry can abridge freedom of speech.

Who owned the press in those days? Private industry.

Did anyone own all of the soap boxes?

Printing presses were expensive. They were free to be as partisan as they liked. Still are.

Would our Founders have said that our enemies could own all of the TV networks if they had foreseen TV?

You are free to set up your own outlet. Nobody is stopping you. God bless America !

 

[Crepitus]

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all banned me for citing the Declaration of Independence

I do not believe you.

 

[Pellinore]

The first few words of the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law." It in itself does not place restrictions on anyone but Congress.