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: 4
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I do have to admit; that's more than just a little amusing right there! (Seriously?)


Yeah, apparently Chuck and Dave are big sponsors of the arts and sciences.


Though I've seen stranger. Then again, have you ever heard of Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge??

Nawww, say it ain't so, right?


Need to look that up.




posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Might as well look up Rocky Flats nuclear weapons manufacturing plant National Wildlife Refuge while you're at it.

...interested in nature, the arts and sciences, you say???


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



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I feel the current climate were in it would
Be dangerous to use real names.

Also the government could use it
To censor and silence people.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Has there always been an ideological censorship in the media?

I know there is a glaring bias now on all levels and sides, but to silence opinion based on nothing but ideology flies in the face the whole argument surrounding public accommodation.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Has there always been an ideological censorship in the media?


Yes:


When John Adams signed the Sedition Act (Oh, John … John … why …) – Republican newspapers were shut down, editors jailed, etc. Jefferson, hanging out at Monticello, was instrumental in getting some of these papers started up again, so that he could have a place to put HIS views into the public realm.



I also thought it was really funny (in light of what’s going on nowadays) to learn, again, how people expected newspapers to be biased back then.

Review of Jefferson's Second Revolution: The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism


Very good book and worth a read.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Interesting.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Freedom of speech for Americans, yes.

But NOT for foreign entities with intentions of lying and propagandizing our internal affairs.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

As long as these foreigners are censored on both sides of the aisle.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: GrandePoobah


Trump and his strongest supporters in the Senate can make sure they keep this issue in the public eye with investigations and considering legislation. 


And then it's just another political football used to divide-and-conquer with no end in sight.

How about a real solution like incorporation reform? If a company wants all the perks and privileges and entitlements of incorporation -- including subsidies from taxpayers -- then they must conduct their business in accordance with government standards and mandates. So if it would be a 1st Amendment violation by government, then corporations can't do it either.

Google, Tesla, Apple, Facebook rake in massive subsidies: report

Op-ed: Facebook deal is corporate welfare funded by taxpayers

Thoughts on Facebook's $814 million taxpayer subsidy

If a company doesn't want to conduct their business under the same rules and regulations, then no incorporation -- and no special perks, privileges, entitlements and taxpayer subsidies.

Ya gotta pay the cost to be the boss.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: angeldoll

As long as these foreigners are censored on both sides of the aisle.


Oh silly. Trump's in office. There is only one side of the aisle that matters.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

The sad part is you believe that. You'd likely be fine with foreigners interference as long as it hurts Trump.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Interesting.


Crazy, over the top rhetoric, duels and basically people just behaving like assholes. Nothing has changed.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
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.




I agree.

Perhaps it would help people to understand the case by reading the petition to SCOTUS:

www.supremecourt.gov...

It's unlikely the court would decide in either way in a manner that would impact social media. The facts presented in this case are very narrow.

Moreover, the 1st amendment social media issue has already be addressed in a number of recent cases:



Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram are all
popular social media venues used for sharing political
opinion. And, though they are all privately owned and
operated, they are subject to numerous federal and state
laws, exist because the government created the Internet,
and are utilized by all levels of government. But applying
the traditional state actor analysis should still lead to the
conclusion that these entities and their employees are not
state actors.

See, e.g., Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-06064, 2018 WL 1471939, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018)
(dismissing First Amendment claims against YouTube and Google);

Shulman v. Facebook.com, No. 17-cv-00764, 2017 WL 5129885, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2017) (Facebook not
constitutional state actor). Under the new test announced by the Majority, it is not so clear that these entities are
divorced from state action.



Anything is possible. But I doubt this will have much impact on the issues being discussed in this thread.
edit on 17-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: loam


Thanks for posting that, I was trying to track down some recent cases but couldn't find any. Good job.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Yay! bigger government control over private business!


It's about time.


Right, we are just one step away from the workers paradise after gubment seizes production. Pretty hypocritical of these guys to insist on "the invisible hand of the market" except when it affects them, then they need big government to nanny state them. Buncha babies.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
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?


If your idea was correct then you should also be unable to espouse certain views in any public forum. Should you not be allowed to disagree for instance to complain about your mayor in front of your local courthouse to other citizens of your town?

The idea that these companies are just businesses stops when they become public forums, which facebook and twitter and youtube are.


That’s a ridiculous question. My own voice in a public setting is not regulated by a company. If I want to stand next to courthouse and protest I have every right to. If I want to go on Twitter of Bookface and protest they have every right to shun me. Kinda like if I went to a dinner and started to complain they have every right to refuse me service.
So let me ask you this. Are you cool with the gubment stepping in and shunning you through overstep of capitalism?



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Kavanaugh rumored to be tweeting "it's miller time !!"

Remember he always carries that little book with him !!

😎🥁😎



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 02:06 PM
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.



When a company takes in billions of dollars of taxpayer funded government subsidies, it is no longer a private business. These companies have become the public square, which should be available for the public to use without discrimination or bias just like other utilities.

Imagine if telecom companies cut off your cellphone and landline service because you have the wrong opinions. Laws preventing this have been in place for a long time.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Kavanaugh rumored to be tweeting "it's miller time !!"

Remember he always carries that little book with him !!

😎🥁😎







top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join