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.
originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: musicismagic
Although Donald Trump himself is indefinitely banned from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, there are YouTube channels that still discuss him. This was just uploaded today:
originally posted by: musicismagic
Enter now called the Obey Republic of the USA
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: musicismagic
Enter now called the Obey Republic of the USA
The United States government has nothing to do with this, which it shouldn't.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: musicismagic
Enter now called the Obey Republic of the USA
The United States government has nothing to do with this, which it shouldn't.
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Just like phone companies can't ban you for certain speech same should go for social media platforms that have monopolies in their sector.
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Alien Abduct
So you've been told.
And believing this is how you justify wanting to take rights from private citizens.
Do you own a business? because i don't like how you run it. I think you should run your business the way I think it should be run.
Do I sound like I respect freedom when I say that?
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Alien Abduct
So you've been told.
And believing this is how you justify wanting to take rights from private citizens.
Do you own a business? because i don't like how you run it. I think you should run your business the way I think it should be run.
Do I sound like I respect freedom when I say that?
originally posted by: Breakthestreak
BUT .......the government didn’t oppose him. The courts upheld his decision. It’s is LEGAL for him to refuse to bake for a gay couple’s wedding.
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.