Barack Obama Calls For More Censorship First Amendment Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: DBCowboy

Censorship is also when you are trying to make sure your people always blames others for conflicts, uprisings.

That's just MSM doing what they do.

a reply to: vNex92

The first amendment does apply to fb and twitter. It applies to any public venue. Websites like fb and twitter depend on public participation to exist. As such they are subject to the same expectations of free speech as any other public venue. There is already a SCOTUS letter on this subject.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: vNex92

The first amendment does apply to fb and twitter. It applies to any public venue. Websites like fb and twitter depend on public participation to exist. As such they are subject to the same expectations of free speech as any other public venue. There is already a SCOTUS letter on this subject.

That's good to know!! So we don't have to worry about "off topic post removed" or "Warning, ill mannered post removed" anymore? Because SCOTUS....negates the T&C in this public venue.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: vNex92

Didn't Obama sign a law that legalized/legitimized government propaganda?

Yes he did, the Schmidt-Mundt modernization act of 2012:

Schmidt-mundt act of 2012

a reply to: vNex92

First Amendment Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter.

It doesn't.

It applies to government censorship of speech, of which the above are not but private companies (just like ATS).

How many times do we have to go over this BS?

a reply to: Backagain

Facebook and Twitter are privately owned companies. They absolutely have the right to censor content they feel is inappropriate. It is right there in their TOS, which you have to agree to, when you join.

So you are saying that these companies are un-American and do not have to abide by the Constitution ?
Horsesh__
Of course I have had an account there since 2002 .Been there three times in 20 years.

It's because social media is a privately owned platform that isn't subject to freedom of information anymore than a citizen is required to disclose data or endorse ideas that offend their values. Which is, in part, why corporations pushed so hard to have such "people rights" instead of being treated like your average SOS facility.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What happens when the shareholders of Facebook also are your governing entities?

Then what

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: Backagain

Facebook and Twitter are privately owned companies

That is an excuse that those companies like twitter are using.

They absolutely have the right to censor content they feel is inappropriate.

If they moved their offices of a country that has a constitution and first constitution and amendment companies should follow it. Just like Disney.

If Disney doesn't like the law or the bill they are free to move to a location where they can make as much political content as they wish.

You DIDN'T read the TOS! It is right there! Not Twitter's fault, if you cannot comprehend, it CLEARLY STATED RULES! That falls on you! Read the TOS, and tell me I am wrong!


Seriously? You want to blame me, for something Twitter CLEARLY Lay's out? Perhaps you should take a reading and comprehension test.

a reply to: ancientlight

Thank you. I couldn't remember what it was called and that article is perfect. I bookmarked it for future reference.

Every time someone here exclaimed, "Russian Propaganda" I couldn't help but think of that bill but couldn't remember what it was called.

It is insidious. they can rope in any media and pay them with our money to lie to us. Some of the stuff has been obvious. Do you remember the report that the White House "briefed" social influencers on Ukraine that includes tiktokers and YouTubers?

It would be really interesting to get a list of those people and see if their monetizations took any sharp increases coinciding with that meeting.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: vNex92

The first amendment does apply to fb and twitter. It applies to any public venue. Websites like fb and twitter depend on public participation to exist. As such they are subject to the same expectations of free speech as any other public venue. There is already a SCOTUS letter on this subject.

That's good to know!! So we don't have to worry about "off topic post removed" or "Warning, ill mannered post removed" anymore? Because SCOTUS....negates the T&C in this public venue.

Not even close to true.

Free speech applies to all public venues. However, privately owned and maintained sites, such as this, have user agreements which users are bound to. In other words, you agree to forego certain elements of expression that do not meet the standards or expectations of the site admin.

a reply to: vNex92

Obama should grow up, stop whining, and help get people into office whom he likes, like Trump is doing day-after-day.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Ha ha ha!

I don't recall him calling them the "enemy of the State" like Trump.

a reply to: watchitburn

Trump never said that, which is what makes them actual enemies of democracy.

FFS!
I wish people understood what the debate was about before they chimed in with "Twitter and Facebook are private companies, so they can do whatever they want. It's in the T&C that their users agree to follow."
We know that! That's not what this thread is about.
The debate is about fascists like King Obama who want to silence anyone who oppose them. They want to control the information flow. Obama lies like a rug, then has the unmitigated, egomaniacal, narcissistic audacity to lecture people on the evils of "disinformation" and "misinformation". The biggest liar that ever held the office is now spearheading a crusade for honesty. I honestly think it's the funniest thing I've ever heard.

a reply to: ColeYounger



How dare you go to the point

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: vNex92

First Amendment Does Not Apply to Facebook and Twitter.

It doesn't.

It applies to government censorship of speech, of which the above are not but private companies (just like ATS).

How many times do we have to go over this BS?

But if the entire MSM has been bought out by corrupt Soros :
Corrupt evil scum
he meddles in elections and MSM both in Europe and the US , how's that constitutional ? By muddying the waters and by censoring opposing thoughts , it's unconstitutional.

My ears always perk up when I hear about censorship of the "problematic" and "election interfering" facebook issue.
Particularly when understanding that it was established the DAY congress shutdown Lifelog. The darpa social media/information gathering operation. Before it got the guy who looks like a compromised perv with a cute dorm story.
I could see the writing on the wall with that one.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ancientlight

Thank you. I couldn't remember what it was called and that article is perfect. I bookmarked it for future reference.

Every time someone here exclaimed, "Russian Propaganda" I couldn't help but think of that bill but couldn't remember what it was called.

It is insidious. they can rope in any media and pay them with our money to lie to us. Some of the stuff has been obvious. Do you remember the report that the White House "briefed" social influencers on Ukraine that includes tiktokers and YouTubers?

It would be really interesting to get a list of those people and see if their monetizations took any sharp increases coinciding with that meeting.

I think I may have read something about Ukraine/tiktok 'social influencers' on Telegram, but I will have to look it up later when my phone is charged