Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/12/2019 10:10:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

DAMN STRAIGHT !!


2 posted on 06/12/2019 10:21:02 PM PDT by A strike (import third world become third world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's far beyond time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets do it today.  Please chip in.


President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America
President Donald J. Trump's address to the United Nations on 09/19/2017.

Ramirez political cartoon:  Google LARGE VERSION 06/12/2019: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).
Garrison political cartoon:  Socialism the Millennial Flytrap LARGE VERSION 06/2019: LINK  LINK (scroll down) to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).




FReepers, 97.514% of the Second Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!

...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $428.00 dollars to 98.00%

3 posted on 06/12/2019 10:28:24 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (This space for rent...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

SEC, FTC, FCC all have regulatory authority over these publicly-traded corporations (not, repeat not, private companies).

CDA (1996) Section 230 specifically provides them with Federal protection from content liability in exchange for operating as “open platforms” that do not act as content publishers (editors).

We do not need to pass new legislation. We do not even need to invoke anti-trust regulations.

We need our Federal government to apply the laws on the books.

These corporations have engaged in fiscal malfeasance by causing politically-motivated scandals that have damaged stock value.

They have committed consumer fraud by applying their terms of service - a contract - in a selective and deceptive manner. (Users are consumers: Their data provides the platform with revenue, directly and/or indirectly.)

Finally, and most pertinently, they have manifestly violated the conditions for their legal immunity by acting as content publishers.


6 posted on 06/13/2019 12:32:05 AM PDT by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Great article!!

Thanks for posting :)


8 posted on 06/13/2019 1:12:56 AM PDT by redinIllinois (Pro-life, accountant, gun-totin' Grandma - multi issue voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

“I don’t remember voting for any of these people to run our country. Do you?”

No. However, I do remember an article where Zuckerberg was quoted as saying that he is the “Leader of Facebook”...in a context that describes a kind of developing Facebook Nation.


9 posted on 06/13/2019 1:33:48 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
I admire his tenacity, but Schlichter is out to lunch on this one.

Are you cool with companies refusing to let black people sit at a lunch counter? With denying them a Twitter account because they are Jewish? With telling women "Sorry sweetie, this software is for men only?"

Of course not.

But at one time, the idea that the sanctity of property rights gave a private business complete autonomy to discriminate was a "principled conservative position." But this is not a "principled conservative position" anymore; even National Review repudiated having held it a half century ago. Today, mainstream conservatives reject the notion that the government cannot regulate against discrimination based upon race or religion. And it is well-established in the law that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to enact laws doing so, except where the government violates the religious liberty of the business owner, so put that in your cake and bake it.

The "principle" that we can’t tell a private business who it must do business with is no principle at all. We accept that discrimination can be curbed, leaving only a debate over what kind of discrimination should be curbed.

First of all, private property means exactly that: private property. And anyone who claims that the government has a compelling interest in forcing private business owners to conduct business against their will has no idea what it means to be a conservative. This is how you end up in a completely untenable environment where a baker is forced by law to serve clients against his wishes ... under the directives of totalitarian laws and regulations written by lawyers who are free to accept or reject clients at will.

It's pathetic that someone has to resort to a religious freedom argument to make a legal case against this idiocy. A business owner should be free to accept or reject customers for any reason at all ... and "I just don't like you" should be a perfectly acceptable reason. If a business owner wants to reject a specific group of potential customers, then so be it. Professionals like lawyers and accountants do it all the time. Why aren't restaurant owners and bakers held to the same standards?

This country is doomed if someone like Kurt Schlichter no longer understands what the term "Mind your own business!" even means anymore. This idea of government compulsion to conduct business against your will has no place in a free nation.

10 posted on 06/13/2019 2:25:34 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
There is no actual conservative principle that requires us to shrug and accept being ostracized from the basic structure of modern American society for the sin of defying the conventional wisdom of a bunch of Scat Francisco swells.

There's no actual conservative principle that gives anyone the right to call someone else's business an open forum simply by calling it "the basic structure of modern American society."

There was a time when newspapers fit this description. If you tried to tell this country's founders that this "basic structure of American society" nonsense gave you the right to force newspapers to print your editorial content, you'd have been burned out of your home and chased to Canada.

Funny how we give the Chinese so much grief about violating intellectual property protections, when we find plenty of it right here from "conservatives" in the U.S.

12 posted on 06/13/2019 2:33:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." -- Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The Anti-Trust stuff should have happened long ago against these companies... but Barry knew they were his meal ticket so no one was going to touch them during his years.


22 posted on 06/13/2019 7:01:53 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson