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.

 

Trump's Facebook ban upheld by Oversight Board

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2021 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Okay, this line of discussion has probably gone on too long, but here's the thing...anecdotal evidence is rather irrelevant, and I already allowed for rare examples where every sidewalk within and surrounding a campus is owned by the school. You mention that people are removed from your campus, and my argument, backed up by the following link (and many easily found other sources), is that sidewalks adjacent to public roads are public forums, not campus property. It's also not "extremely rare" that universities and colleges have public roadways surrounding and going through them.

Regardless, feel free to read this and to do other research as well, and pay attention to points that matter if you look into other sources, like when they cite things like the sidewalk generally needs to be gated off or have obvious limited access in order for it not to be considered private property where assembly and speech is not protected. From the link:

Property That Historically Has Been Open to the Public

Your right to access public property is strongest when the area you wish to access has historically been open to the public for the exercise of speech, public debate, and assembly. These areas are known as public forums and include spaces such as sidewalks, parks, and town squares. You may freely enter and gather information while in these public spaces, but you should do so without disturbing the peace or interfering with those around you. Your right of access does not confer immunity from all liability if your conduct is disruptive or harassing.

Property That Is Open to the Public for a Limited Purpose

Your right to access government-owned property that is only partially open to the public is a bit more limited. ...

However, some public property, even though it is open only for limited purposes, can take on the attributes of a public forum discussed above. A classic example of this type of property is public schools and universities. Although public school and university buildings are not wholly open to the public, some parts of a campus may be considered a public forum. If a school's large open quad is accessed from public sidewalks and streets and freely used by the general public with no apparent objection from the school administration, then the quad may be considered "dedicated" to public use, and therefore more like the traditional public forums of the public park and sidewalk. Additionally, if the school opens certain of its rooms for non-school meetings that are open to the public, those rooms, during those times, will be treated as public forums.

The underlined italics are my own emphasis (the bold is original in the link), but just understand that, per my comments to Byrd (who is still very wrong) and now you, my point still stands and holds up to judicial scrutiny. I'm not going to start linking to and quoting appropriate rulings that support my point, but the bottom line is that you can either believe me, or refuse to. But doing just a small bit of research into the topic shows that blanket statements about needing permits to speak/preach at public forums (sidewalks) is wrong, as is the assertion that the school would have the authority to remove you.

Have a good day, but I'm now bowing out of this line of discussion. People can make up their own minds, I just hope that they do so with actual research and then don't try to refine their original claim or ignore reality to make their preconceived notion be correct (I'm not saying that's what you did).



posted on Jun, 1 2021 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ATruGod

facebook is banned



posted on Jun, 1 2021 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Utter violation of freedom of speech. Disgusting!



posted on Jun, 2 2021 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ATruGod

why



posted on Jun, 6 2021 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Section 230 needs to be repealed. This gives Facebook and Twitter the right to block whomever they wish. Both companies have shown themselves as operatives of the Democratic Party and blocking any disagreement.



posted on Jun, 7 2021 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede
Both Facebook and Twitter have to abide by provisions in Section 230 in order to operate in the US. Section 230 protects both companies from civil suit for restricting posts if they determine if the posts are against their standards. Here is the rub! Both companies have blocked dialog and individuals who post news/positions that differs from their political position. These acts changes their status under Section 230 of the National Radio and Telephone Act. They are now considered a "publisher" rather than a "public service". This removes them from the suit protection afforded them.

Both companies through blocking and suspension of accounts has given support exclusively to the Democratic Party. They are no longer a neutral party. The services that are afforded is the same as giving a monetary donation to the Democrats.



new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join