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.

 

Abbott Announces Bill Prohibiting Social Media Censorship

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2021 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Should we not be allowed to utilize our pet politicians to stop that sort of thing??

I think you should change the system to something that does not allow "pet politicians".

edit on 12/3/2021 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2021 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Facebook and Twitter are PRIVATE companies. This site used to stand up for capitalism and companies rights, and now that you don't like the direction they are taking, you change your minds. Remember the whole "gay cake" thing?

Sorry, but private companies can do as they wish.

If you don't like it, start your own Facebook or twitter to spread your lies. Seems they don't like doing it anymore.

And Dems have been wanting to make Facebook and Twitter "utilities" for years, so that they CAN be regulated. Is that where you want to go? I'm fine with that.

a reply to: Snarl



If BLM thinks things are so unfair in America, they can start their own country.
edit on 12-3-2021 by SKEPTEK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2021 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Of course we should.

But until that time, you do what you must.



posted on Mar, 14 2021 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: CryHavoc

I'm talking about a statute relative to the conversation, these are discrimination lawsuits based on protected classes, your political view is not a protected class.


Freedom of Speech and Expression is Protected - just not as a class of People. But singling out a certain group and denying them those Freedoms then would be a group of People discriminated against.

I think the 1st link I posted falls under that category. As I said, I don't know if it has the statue you're looking for.

I think you might have to do your own research on that. Cornell seems to have a lot of Law online.



posted on Mar, 14 2021 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
If BLM thinks things are so unfair in America, they can start their own country.


There's a country in Africa that would like them to come back.

But you don't see Trevor Noah trying to get back to South Africa, do you?



posted on Mar, 15 2021 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Freedom of Speech and Expression is Protected - just not as a class of People. But singling out a certain group and denying them those Freedoms then would be a group of People discriminated against.

I think the 1st link I posted falls under that category. As I said, I don't know if it has the statue you're looking for.

I think you might have to do your own research on that. Cornell seems to have a lot of Law online.


None of what you posted or linked explains why a private business cannot censor your opinion. You are doing what many other people commonly and incorrectly do, applying the First Amendment to entities that aren't the government.



posted on Mar, 15 2021 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

It makes for great sound bites...but speech on platforms such as FB, or what have you, even ATS, is not protected from private entities who can set the rules.

Constitutional protections are to prevent the govt. from doing that.



posted on Mar, 17 2021 @ 11:03 PM
link   
If they have ever presented themselves as a place for Speaking Freely, then to all of a sudden decide they are going to no longer provide a place for Speaking Freely is tantamount to Fraud.

It's like ATS all of a sudden deciding not to allow Conspiracy Theories on their web forum.

If there was Money exchanged for Services, it could be considered a form of Bait and Switch.

Unless there was a clause in their Terms of Service.

Whaaa?!? You didn't read the Terms of Service?

But if it's not in their TOS that they can kick you off of their board, forum, or website for your Speech, then they are breaking their own agreement with you.

Any website that you paid to be on falls under Sales Laws. And Private Companies definitely do have to conform to those Laws. This includes when someone pays for a Premium Service to remove Ads, like YouTube does.

But think really hard about this - if a company was allowing certain Speech on their website, then decided to no longer allow it, they would definitely have to have the ability to do that covered in their TOS.

Otherwise, it can be Breach of Contract. Because when you answer Yes and agree to a TOS, that is a Contract.

Me personally, I'd only use Twitter if someone paid me to. So luckily, I don't have to worry about any of this.
edit on 17-3-2021 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join