It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCOTUS agrees to hear case about social media censorship

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: GrandePoobah

The right to refuse service stands with the company. It is not the governments job to regulate that. It’s kinda like if a business wants to be whites only. Well fine they can do that but chances are they will fail. Less government damnit. And with all the people here complaining about Twitter censorship and Twitter in general you would think they would be happy to see it go. So then why support this?




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.


While I agree, I wonder if social media trying to act like the press and be purveyors of news alters the equation.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: pheonix358

Forcing people to reveal themselves is a very bad idea. I've personally had death threats for my views multiple times just on this website - and I felt safe because they don't know who I am. The mods banned them for it but if my real name was on here, banning them would be meaningless. They won't even have to tell me they are coming after me.

Except that would be done with THEIR real names as well allowing legal action. Right now they are anonymous and nothing you can do.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I guess this will be a good case to prove how much of a Constitutionalist Kavanaugh actually is. The First Amendment only protects your right to free speech from the government. Last time I checked Facebook wasn't signing bills and passing legislation.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: GrandePoobah

There is a greater argument here.
This is a case pitting restrictions on the government vs. restrictions on private entities.
I'm not sure I like either ending for this.



That is not the argument that should be made... that is the false argument being pushed by those that are happy that conservatives are being censored on these platforms for the same things that non conservative voices do every day and get away with.

The argument is that these platforms have claimed - and benefited - from a designation that they are not publishers. This allows them to avoid libel laws. The minute they start to curate and edit to push content in line with their ideals, that designation should be removed and they should be opened up to the same laws that any other media outlet is exposed to.

So they should either keep their ideology out of their decisions or pay the cost of having an army of people curating and publishing content to avoid being sued.
edit on 17/10/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I guess this will be a good case to prove how much of a Constitutionalist Kavanaugh actually is. The First Amendment only protects your right to free speech from the government. Last time I checked Facebook wasn't signing bills and passing legislation.


..someone else who missed the actual argument.

EDIt : actually you are correct in THIS case. The actual litigators themselves are missing the argument.

edit on 17/10/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I guess this will be a good case to prove how much of a Constitutionalist Kavanaugh actually is. The First Amendment only protects your right to free speech from the government. Last time I checked Facebook wasn't signing bills and passing legislation.


..someone else who missed the actual argument.

EDIt : actually you are correct in THIS case. The actual litigators themselves are missing the argument.


NVM
I see you edited your post.

edit on 2/19/2013 by Allaroundyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I guess this will be a good case to prove how much of a Constitutionalist Kavanaugh actually is. The First Amendment only protects your right to free speech from the government. Last time I checked Facebook wasn't signing bills and passing legislation.


Exactly this! I do not understand how the SC could not come back and say that. These private social media companies actually are using their right to free speech about the government and so are protected by the 1st amendment.

Any private company should have that right. If it is offensive to one or many, that business will fail on its own accord or have to change their stance out of necessity. The actual consumers should determine that, not government interference.

I am actually surprised that any conservative republicans would not recognize this fact. The democrats should be more concerned, since such a confirmed justification, may actually overturn many cases that are then brought forward regarding the right of private businesses discriminating based on having the right of speech or ... Freedom of religious beliefs.

Personally, I am hoping the SC sticks with the constitution as written. Interpretations often muck it up and create loopholes. Private owned businesses will succeed and fail on their own without having a nanny government doing it for them.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You could make the same argument about ATS, or really any forum on the internet. The owners of this site curate against views that promote Nazism.

So do you agree that ATS should be held to more stringent laws as well?



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

The decisions for most of those previous cases would stand because they deal with protected classes. Political ideology is not a protected class in the US.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   
They are about to go down big League



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: CynConcepts

The decisions for most of those previous cases would stand because they deal with protected classes. Political ideology is not a protected class in the US.


My point is that the equal class protection 14th amendment is meant for states to provide class equality in applying the law, not individual protection. As the 1st amendment provides freedom of speech is only in regards towards the government by law cannot infringe upon it.

The amendments were created to apply the law equally and not infringe upon the rights of the individuals by the government. They were not created to apply for private individuals vs individuals.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: GrandePoobah


The only way this impacts social media, since the suit is actually against a public television station, is if the Justices use a very broad ruling. Very click-baity article title.



edit on 17-10-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: Konduit

Funny to me that conservatives all of a sudden want the government to tell private businesses how to run their business. Cold day in hell... we've arrived.

For example...

You have some property and you build a wall on that property. On that wall you hang some art. Some people come along with some crap art and are like "Hey, we can see that y'all have some art on your wall. We demand to put our crap art up on your wall.".

There's really only one response... "This is my wall, get the hell out of here".

So, are you wrong for doing that? Should someone who didn't work to buy that property and build that wall tell you what art you put up on that wall? Shame on these fake conservatives. It's a new brand of SJWs.


You didn't build that.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: GrandePoobah

This is absolutely absurd!

First of all, doesn't the SCOTUS have better things to be considering than what FailBook and Twatter allow or don't allow? Doesn't the very essence of freedom mean you can choose to just not participate in these social diseases?

Second, what will be the penalty? What will be the new burden of proof? How will social media be defined? What are the boundaries?

This is INSANE!!



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
First of all, doesn't the SCOTUS have better things to be considering than what FailBook and Twatter allow or don't allow? Doesn't the very essence of freedom mean you can choose to just not participate in these social diseases?


They do and the case isn't even about them, it's about Time Warner Cable's management of the local NYC public television station.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   
This is political correctness and 'butt hurted-ness' run amok!

"Wahhhh...my opinion matters...waaaahhhhhh...you deleted my post...waaahhhhhh **sniff sniff**"

What a bunch of Capital BS!



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Of course, I was just making a sarcastic example, but really...who freaking cares???

Anyone with one calorie of remaining brain power should know if they get within 10 feet of the "ON" button for their TV they are already well inside the Extreme Political Bias Zone! Doesn't matter what channel you turn on, or what periodical you read, or what website you go to.

ETA - ATS excepted.


edit on 10/17/2018 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Of course, I was just making a sarcastic example, but really...who freaking cares???


A lot of people in this thread apparently. They didn't even bother to look up the case and automatically assumed it was about social media.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
If this eliminates even a fraction of the censorship that has been occurring, then I don't see it as a bad thing at all.

Sure, we can focus on the butthurt, but if we start accepting that some forms of censorship is acceptable, then where does that stop?




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join