Hey libertarians, is this still OK, or is there some kind of line somewhere?

a reply to: butcherguy

Not sure what a decision from 170 years ago has to do with social media companies voluntarily adopting policy.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: butcherguy

Not sure what a decision from 170 years ago has to do with social media companies voluntarily adopting policy.

I explained it in my post.
The Supreme Court is political and not infallible.

I'll add this too: The US Supreme Court is the weakest of our three branches. The limited number of justices and the lifetime appointments make it far too easy to have an entire branch compromised through blackmail or even threats of death.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Halfswede

And? My point still stands. Unless they compel them and it's not optional those are the breaks.

No point. Just clarification that it isn't just social media that can/should be easily avoided.

a reply to: DBCowboy

At DB University there are no Journalism courses, just DNC Stenography 101 - 400 level like all other colleges and universities except here it is appropriately titled.

I feel all that kind of went out the window they they ruled that Trump couldn't block people on Twitter. But then Twitter turned around and blocked Trump.

It's all horse doody.

originally posted by: butcherguy
The Supreme Court is political and not infallible.

If this is deemed un-Constitutional and if it gets to the Supreme Court maybe that tact will be one we can discuss. At this point neither is on the table.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I feel all that kind of went out the window they they ruled that Trump couldn't block people on Twitter. But then Twitter turned around and blocked Trump.

It's all horse doody.

that's totally different. Totally. and it's been debunked.

originally posted by: Halfswede
No point. Just clarification that it isn't just social media that can/should be easily avoided.

None of these things are a necessity to life.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: network dude

Nope. Never was okay. Still not okay for the government to tell a private business what they can do. Whether social media is a platform or publisher and whether they need to adhere to the laws surrounding publishers liability for their content is still up for debate.

But we can tell a Utility for obvious reasons of fairness to all people what to do by laws and the utilities in the USA must service all people.

FB and the Internet have certain sites that are controlling all information. They are undeclared by our Gov as a Utility and the Treasonous ones are lock step with the Globalist agenda, "to hell with our COTUS, or Bill of Rights and white people" is their game. Enough of allowing that drewlander! ENOUGH of the Bull sh*t already .


For a business or governing agency of any king or kind that puts out any service to the public this is the real meaning of the COTUS

FREE SPEECH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Thus we had to have the 2nd amendment and it will be legal to enforce the 1st, mark my words for later translation if you must.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: butcherguy
The Supreme Court is political and not infallible.

If this is deemed un-Constitutional and if it gets to the Supreme Court maybe that tact will be one we can discuss. At this point neither is on the table.

You might not be falling down drunk, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility of it happening in the near future.

originally posted by: butcherguy
You might not be falling down drunk, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility of it happening in the near future.

We can but I just don't see the relevance of discussing a twice removed hypothetical situation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: butcherguy
You might not be falling down drunk, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility of it happening in the near future.

We can but I just don't see the relevance of discussing a twice removed hypothetical situation.

Because I felt like it.
Maybe the Supreme Court can rule on that.
Then they can rule about whether it makes any sense to respond to something that you don't want to talk about.

a reply to: network dude

Quite frankly, speaking as a small "L" libertarian, as soon as Facebook (or any company) becomes a corporation, benefiting from special perks and privileges and entitlements, they are in bed with government, and are no longer a private company.

If companies want special government entitlements and protections, then they need to be held to the same standards. Government cannot discriminate, therefore neither can corporations. Government cannot censor free speech, therefore neither can corporations.

If they want to retain the rights of private individuals, then they should not incorporate.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Then they can rule about whether it makes any sense to respond to something that you don't want to talk about.

They can't rule on anything until someone files a case and it makes its way through the court system. At this point nothing has happened.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: network dude

Quite frankly, speaking as a small "L" libertarian, as soon as Facebook (or any company) becomes a corporation, benefiting from special perks and privileges and entitlements, they are in bed with government, and are no longer a private company.

If companies want special government entitlements and protections, then they need to be held to the same standards. Government cannot discriminate, therefore neither can corporations. Government cannot censor free speech, therefore neither can corporations.

If they want to retain the rights of private individuals, then they should not incorporate.

Agreed as my post was paraphrasing this.

a reply to: Boadicea

If companies want special government entitlements and protections, then they need to be held to the same standards. Government cannot discriminate, therefore neither can corporations. Government cannot censor free speech, therefore neither can corporations.

What about churches? Or farmers who receive subsidies from the government? Pretty much every business in this country receives benefits from the government in some form. Do you believe that every single one of those entities should be forced to give up their 1st Amendment rights?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude

They can ask them and what those companies do is their business. When they compel them, or imply there could be ramifications if they don't, that's where it becomes un-Constitutional.

Also need to be considered we're taking about FB. They're more than happy to assist this government. They don't feel like someone is usurping their constitutional rights.

Let's put the shoe on other foot.

Let's say Facebook was conservative. Everything someone DMed or posted about black lives matter or climate change, Facebook would censor or put up warning about misinformation they are getting from government direction.

Would that be acceptable?

originally posted by: Trueman
They're more than happy to assist this government.

As long as they aren't being compelled or forced than they're free to give the government a happy ending if they want.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Let's put the shoe on other foot.

Let's say Facebook was conservative. Everything someone DMed or posted about black lives matter or climate change, Facebook would censor or put up warning about misinformation they are getting from government direction.

Would that be acceptable?

Yup, as long as they weren't forced or compelled.

So if the government said, "GETTR, we want you to alert us to anti-vax posts", GETTR could say, "Suck my nards". The issue you all have is that Facebook is saying, "I want to be your bitch, government".

STOP. USING. THEM.