July 5, 20232 yr 49 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: And what First Amendment rights do the Russian Propagandists at the Troll Farm in Russia, have when they use the Social Media Platform to spread disinformation and lies. seems to me the Government, in order to protect the election, would reach out to the company to make sure they are aware of it and request they take action to prevent/remove it. I see no violation with that. And therein lies the gray area and potential problem. The federal government is prohibited from abridging freedom of speech (except for a few specific situations which have been laid out in the courts). The government isn't allowed to make a loophole to this by pressuring a private site to censor the speech they wish it to censor, and so that way they can say "oh, we weren't the ones censoring the speech. It was the private company doing it". That's what this case is ultimately going to come to. Did the site censor this speech on their own or were they pressured by the government to do so, and essentially acting as an arm of the government and censoring speech on the government's behalf. Previous cases have held that government officials have a right to speak and convince others of their opinions. But if it goes to the point of coercion where a failure to accede to the request could be interpreted that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory policy will follow, that's when the line has been crossed and it's now a violation of the first amendment.
July 5, 20232 yr 24 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Once again..........A social media site deciding to regulate speech on their site = OK. a social media site acting as a defacto arm of the federal government to regulate speech at the behest of the federal government = NOT ok and a violation of the first amendment. That's not even close to what happened.
July 5, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: That's not even close to what happened. I'm not saying they did. I'm just explaining to Toastrel that if that's what happened, then this would be a violation of the first amendment. He seems to think that it wouldn't be. I didn't read the ruling yet to see what evidence is listed. I'm sure the Biden Admin will appeal.
July 5, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: There is no free speech on social media. Not if the Democrats are in charge there isnt. Only state approved speech will be allowed. Just the way it should be, right? Delicious, delectable government boots
July 5, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Nope, I have to disagree. I think the government was wrong, but free speech ON TWITTER is not right. You can just say this topic is too complex and you dont understand, it would save time.
July 5, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: I'm not saying they did. I'm just explaining to Toastrel that if that's what happened, then this would be a violation of the first amendment. He seems to think that it wouldn't be. I didn't read the ruling yet to see what evidence is listed. I'm sure the Biden Admin will appeal. It's just an injunction at this point, not even his final ruling. And the evidence, as always, is non-existent.
July 5, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: You can just say this topic is too complex and you dont understand, it would save time. What rights to free speech do you have on Twitter? None. You're welcome.
July 5, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, Toastrel said: What rights to free speech do you have on Twitter? None. You're welcome. If the govt is colluding with them, and forcing them to suppress free speech, thats a violation.
July 5, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: It's just an injunction at this point, not even his final ruling. And the evidence, as always, is non-existent. I wouldn't say the evidence is non-existent. Skimming through the early portions of the memo, the back and forth between Flaherty and facebook are questionable IMO.
July 5, 20232 yr Didn’t those morons already hold hearings on it. Look at Connolly’s questioning from 16-20 minutes to get an idea of the truth.
July 5, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said: And therein lies the gray area and potential problem. The federal government is prohibited from abridging freedom of speech (except for a few specific situations which have been laid out in the courts). The government isn't allowed to make a loophole to this by pressuring a private site to censor the speech they wish it to censor, and so that way they can say "oh, we weren't the ones censoring the speech. It was the private company doing it". That's what this case is ultimately going to come to. Did the site censor this speech on their own or were they pressured by the government to do so, and essentially acting as an arm of the government and censoring speech on the government's behalf. Previous cases have held that government officials have a right to speak and convince others of their opinions. But if it goes to the point of coercion where a failure to accede to the request could be interpreted that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory policy will follow, that's when the line has been crossed and it's now a violation of the first amendment. Ok, but whose free speech rights were violated? The Russian Troll Farms? The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. This sounds like Trump's claim. My rights were violated because the Russian Troll Farm had the propaganda supporting me taken down. But it's not Trump's speech as well.
July 5, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: It's too bad this sham ruling from this cultist judge will be overturned. You poor saps had been taking so many L's lately, I'd hate to see you spike the football at the 50 yard line again. 5 hours ago, Toastrel said: Mike still thinks there is free speech on social media platforms with TOS that specifically tell you, you do not have free speech there. 4 hours ago, Toastrel said: What free speech? You really are deranged. You have no right to free speech on any social media platform. Even truth social has speech rules. Deal with it buttercup. 2 hours ago, Toastrel said: There is no free speech on social media. 2 hours ago, Toastrel said: Nope, I have to disagree. I think the government was wrong, but free speech ON TWITTER is not right. 1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said: That's not even close to what happened. 1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said: It's just an injunction at this point, not even his final ruling. And the evidence, as always, is non-existent. 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: What rights to free speech do you have on Twitter? None. You're welcome. 1 hour ago, VanHammersly said: Donald Trump owns a social media site. We get it fellas - you hate the constitution and in particular, free speech. Let’s move on.
July 5, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said: Ok, but whose free speech rights were violated? The Russian Troll Farms? The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them. This sounds like Trump's claim. My rights were violated because the Russian Troll Farm had the propaganda supporting me taken down. But it's not Trump's speech as well. This case has nothing to do with Russian Troll Farms.
July 5, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, mikemack8 said: We get it fellas - you hate the constitution and in particular, free speech. Let’s move on. I love those things, I just can't abide idiots. It is a simple concept. You going to Twitter and agreeing to their terms of service forfeits your right to free speech on that platform. They can tell you to pound sand. Do I agree with the government asking, or threatening, or however you care to put it, Twitter into censoring for them, nope. Not at all. The point you cannot seem to grasp is that services offer you no guarantees of free speech. You may need to go to a street corner, get up on a soapbox, and exercise your right all you like, and as long as you are peaceable and reasonably white, you can do so without fear of being arrested.
July 5, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, Toastrel said: I love those things, I just can't abide idiots. It is a simple concept. You going to Twitter and agreeing to their terms of service forfeits your right to free speech on that platform. They can tell you to pound sand. Do I agree with the government asking, or threatening, or however you care to put it, Twitter into censoring for them, nope. Not at all. The point you cannot seem to grasp is that services offer you no guarantees of free speech. You may need to go to a street corner, get up on a soapbox, and exercise your right all you like, and as long as you are peaceable and reasonably white, you can do so without fear of being arrested. Once again, if the government threatens Twitter in order to get them to censor speech, that is a violation of the first amendment. PERIOD. The government can make suggestions. The government can make requests. Once it crosses the line to coercion where the site feels they need to abide by the request otherwise they’ll face retribution, it then becomes a violation of first amendment rights.
July 5, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: Not sure which thread to post this: have they figured out whose bag of cocaine was at the White House? There’s a 95% chance it was Hunter’s right? Hunter Biden is the betting favorite.
July 5, 20232 yr 33 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Once it crosses the line to coercion where the site feels they need to abide by the request otherwise they’ll face retribution, it then becomes a violation of first amendment rights. I agree, but I don't think anything has been produced by hack Taibbi or Musk from Twitter's past to suggest there was coercion. Requests were made by various members of government and candidates running for office. Some were honored, some weren't. There was internal (independent) dialogue about many of the requests showing earnest deliberation. I have not seen anything that shows govt overstepped its bounds here.
July 5, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I agree, but I don't think anything has been produced by hack Taibbi or Musk from Twitter's past to suggest there was coercion. Requests were made by various members of government and candidates running for office. Some were honored, some weren't. There was internal (independent) dialogue about many of the requests showing earnest deliberation. I have not seen anything that shows govt overstepped its bounds here. Reading through some of the memo from the injunction, some of the messages provided are questionable IMO.
July 5, 20232 yr So asking/requesting (Not ordering them, or using any coercion) Twitter to take down posts spreading disinformation about Covid, trying to save lives, is a violation of Free Speech?. So posting fascist, lies about Covid is free speech, Just like the 2020 election was stolen. So spreading lies that endanger peoples lives is Free Speech? Free speech doesn't exist on a Social Media platform. I see this case getting overruled by the Appellate Court.
July 6, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Reading through some of the memo from the injunction, some of the messages provided are questionable IMO. Can you share them?
July 6, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: So asking/requesting (Not ordering them, or using any coercion) Twitter to take down posts spreading disinformation about Covid, trying to save lives, is a violation of Free Speech?. So posting fascist, lies about Covid is free speech, Just like the 2020 election was stolen. So spreading lies that endanger peoples lives is Free Speech? Free speech doesn't exist on a Social Media platform. I see this case getting overruled by the Appellate Court. So when you say "fascist"... are you referring to a thin, connective bodily tissue or that sophistic, platitudinous term that's all the rage among today's pseudointellectual cognoscenti?
Create an account or sign in to comment