Shouldn't public accomodation laws apply to Twitter, Facebook, etc.?

[Skylar]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

SCOTUS has already ruled on the gay wedding cake problem. Thaley can have their gay wedding cakes.

Its a state law.

SCOTUS makes it Federal Law.

SCOTUS allows the State law to stand. They didn't extend their ruling to the federal government. Or any other State. But limited it to the State law they were reviewing.

Jeeze, SOUTUS made a ruling and they are free to walk amongst us.

On the baker issue, they upheld a state law. They didn't apply that State law to other States or the federal government. The ruling was quite narrow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Being an asshole is not a protected class.

So you support censoring people who express ideas that deviate from the party line. That's nice.

No one supports any such thing.

It is not ‘censorship’ for FB to edit its content as it sees fit.

Those who open accounts on FB agree to the site’s terms of use; if an account is terminated, it’s because the user failed to abide by the agreement, not because of ‘censorship.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Leftists love discriminating

This is a lie.

That conservatives incorrectly perceive social media as being ‘unfair’ to conservatives doesn’t justify conservatives seeking political retribution against social media using the power and authority of the state to violate the First Amendment rights of social media.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On the baker issue, they upheld a state law. They didn't apply that State law to other States or the federal government. The ruling was quite narrow.

And however the Court might eventually rule with regard to public accommodations laws, they still won’t have anything to do with social media.

Indeed, if the Court should eventually invalidate such laws, they certainly wouldn’t apply to social media.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

Conservatives becoming socialists to own the libs.....

Adorable

 

[jillian]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

No

 

[Skylar]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

Conservatives becoming socialists to own the libs.....

Adorable

They've wiped their asses with every other principle they claimed to have supported. Why not collective ownership of private companies too?

 

[JoeB131]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

Well, no.

Actually, Facebook and Twitter are pretty open-minded on what you can post. Trump wasn't banned for expressing conservative ideas, he was banned for inciting violence.

And that's the rub. Facebook has to make sure that there's no illegal activity going on with their platform. Inciting violence, selling illegal goods and services, etc.

The real problem with Facebook is that they are kind of cheap and don't have enough people dedicated to this task.

Final point- as someone else pointed out, Trump really doesn't have a leg to stand on, as he insisted on his right to ban critics from posting on his tweets.

 

[surada]

Leftists tell us that, if a baker doesn't want to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, then he shouldn't operate a public bakery.

Based on that premise, shouldn't Twitter, Facebook, etc., be required to permit speech, even speech that is offensive, "hateful" or even inaccurate?

No one owes Trump a venue for his speech.

 

[occupied]

We all have the right to free speech but we do not have the right to be provided with a megaphone.

 

[surada]

If they didn't make you sign a disclaimer before you use their services you would be correct. But that is not the case, just like the agreement you sign with USMB allows them to control the content of your free speech.

Trump blames Michelle Obama for him getting banned from Facebook and Twitter. I thought I would die laughing. He's still blaming other people for his tweets.

 

[Colin norris]

K9Buck
Listen dickhead. Leftists have never said that. You have. Facebook etc are private companies and trump cannot control them. Any chance he had of being re installed are now totally gone after taking them to court.

He's a 24 carat idiot and anyone who supports his actions is an idiot also.