Justice Clarence Thomas Says Social Media Companies Do Not Have the Right to Ban Protected Speech

a reply to: olaru12

I despise that twink Brian Kilmeade but he has every right to express his opinion.

Are you stereotyping young gay men? For shame.

a reply to: olaru12

The thing is, they didn't pay the bills. They may pay them now...but who built the infrastructure they operate on? Commerce serves the people. THAT is capitalism, and that is how our nation was designed to work.

One of the biggest travesties in our country is that big oil was given a pass on so many taxes, due to the "chain of manufacturing". Much of the discussion around infrastructure today derives from the "chain of manufacturing" exemptions that so many big rigs on the road get. The man who argued that on behalf of big oil became a billionaire overnight, and is one of the richest men in the world, and Texas, now.

Meanwhile, the roads along the border are literally, i mean literally, falling apart. The drive from San Angelo to Big Lake is harrowing, with the shoulder completely crumbled away. All of it...oil commerce. The area just doesn't create enough tax base to maintain the roads, and oil is exempt from the concern. Is that right? Nope...its the infrastructure that their billions is made from.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: olaru12

The thing is, they didn't pay the bills. They may pay them now...but who built the infrastructure they operate on? Commerce serves the people. THAT is capitalism, and that is how our nation was designed to work.

So how would you regulate or censorship social media? Judge Thomas governmental oversite? There are to many restriction on commerce and capitalism as it is. imo. laissez faire or GTFO.

I sometimes use government owned resources for my projects [BLM]. I pay dearly for that access, as well as being taxed for the maintenance. It's all about the money anyway, that's why my skills, equipment, and final products don't come cheap.

btw...I have no respect for rightwingers that say they value the 1st but want to restrict the free flow of information and support censorship.

a reply to: olaru12

Well, problem 1 is that we have governmental agencies feeding nonsense to these media/social media groups. I'd guess if it were true free market, rather than our government (subsequent to repealing Smith Mundt) using media as a propaganda tool.

But beyond that, you regulate it like anything else. I'd say first and foremost: they have a T&C....they need to abide by it. How come i get fact checks on anything related to the election, but tide pod posts don't have anything? Could it be because human safety isn't the goal...controlling a political message is. You can file a complaint against a post advising you to wrap eggs in foil and microwave to get perfect boiled eggs...but that post won't be removed. I've tried it a couple times just to see.

You seem to be trying to make an argument while not acknowleding the facts that are relevant.

I don't think I am supporting censorship. In fact, im arguing against it. As is Thomas in the OP. You are twisting this a million ways to come to whatever bull# conclusion you came to. Censorship is what is being argued against here. DOn't pretend like you are on the side fighting against it while protecting Twitter censoring others.

a reply to: olaru12

btw...I have no respect for rightwingers that say they value the 1st but want to restrict the free flow of information and support censorship.

And I have no respect for left-wingers who say they support freedom of speech but applaud censorship when it suits their agenda.

1961: "It's my business and if I don't want to serve Negroes, you can't make me!"

2021" "It's my platform and if I don't want to serve Republicans (Christians, conservatives) you can't make me!"

I believe it all comes down to scale, and that the spirit of the Constitution is to prevent power structures from eradicating "inalienable" Rights. Traditionally, we have empowered government to have something of a monopoly on force and so it makes sense to restrict it. But, what happens when the concept of "force" changes with technology?

Meaning.. In the modern context, just because a corporation isnt a government, it can still have the same authoritarian nature & power as a government.

Ive long held the opinion that we could amend the Constitution to restrict any group that can effectively extend their authority and influence like a government.

This addresses a lot of the core issues, and makes a distinction between the mom & pop store down the street (not that those exist anymore ) and a massive international organization like Alphabet, Inc.

Rather than playing a continuous game of whack-a-mole with regulations and specific situations, we work from the foundation that just because a corporation isnt explicitly restricted in the same way as a government.. It doesnt mean it is suddenly acceptable because the face-crushing boot is bedazzled and stylish.

It also handles the current trend of the Hydra nature of many of these global corporations. Most dont even know who "Alphabet, Inc." is, nor why it would be so tricky to go after a lot of these organizations usibg traditional means of handling monopolies.

a reply to: Klassified

This could come back to bite us. Social media companies will no doubt look for loopholes, and I suspect that they will simply put certain topics off limits or bringing in strict hate speech terms that would stop freedom of speech by the back door.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
1961: "It's my business and if I don't want to serve Negroes, you can't make me!"

2021" "It's my platform and if I don't want to serve Republicans (Christians, conservatives) you can't make me!"

Liberals would argue that your religion and politics are a choice, but your race isn't.

Unless you're a Muslim, in which case liberals consider it to be a loop hole.

a reply to: Klassified

Well you see, Clarence knows this issue is not dying away, he knows is all about our rights to free speech and who is trampling them, he see this issue to become a supreme court issue soon, if enough law sues are filed against infringement, soo yes he is expressing an opinion as a seating judge as a warning of things to come.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: olaru12

I despise that twink Brian Kilmeade but he has every right to express his opinion.

Are you stereotyping young gay men? For shame.

I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to offend you!! Sometimes I use barroom vernacular when I post. Political correctness isn't my strong suite.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Klassified

This could come back to bite us. Social media companies will no doubt look for loopholes, and I suspect that they will simply put certain topics off limits or bringing in strict hate speech terms that would stop freedom of speech by the back door.

I wish they would actually. That would drive a large percentage of their users to seek out other platforms, which is exactly what's needed to take down their monopoly on social media.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

DOn't pretend like you are on the side fighting against it while protecting Twitter censoring others.

The only thing I mentioned concerning twitter is their right to make their own T&C protocols as a privately held corporation; Just like ATS. If you can't abide by the T&C you should be banned. You as a mod shouldn't have a problem with that.

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My thoughts on all this, and net neutrality: there is no world in which it is right that companies can utilize the fruits of public investment to deny the public basic constitutionally protected rights.

We paid for the internet. We probably paid for a lot of the development of Facebook. Those assholes got rich using our infrastructure. Just keep that in mind.

When I helped build a Google plant, if you were caught with copper in your pocket, it was a federal penalty, cause the money came from the government. Trust me, after what I saw there, ATS is the only platform I use. The ABC agencies have offices in each plant.

ATS uses no encryption, so everyone and their grandma can see your whole ATS traffic, including your password.

Imo, any social media site should be able to ban users, period. If ATS wanted me gone, poof! I should be gone! It should be the owner's descision.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Klassified

I'm a laissez faire capitalist, I think that would make my stance easy to deduce. But if it isn't I don't think the government should be dictating what is or is not permissible to restrict in regards their platform.

[sigh]

I agree, my friend, but...

...the percentage of people in this world that actually know what "laissez faire" means is definitely below 10%. If I had to guess, I'd say it's more like 5%.

Just saying...

a reply to: Riffrafter

I guess it's a good thing I explained it then.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Riffrafter

I guess it's a good thing I explained it then.

Ha!

Good point.

Carry on.

You mean Facebook giving me the permanent boot for expressing my political viewpoint was likely illegal? I simply wrote "Biden is a clown" and some overzealous, liberal Facebook mod decided to eliminate my account of over10 years.