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

To: semimojo
It's already established by Supreme Court precedent whether you choose to "see" it or not:

"Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square..."

Packingham vs. North Carolina (2016) - US Supreme Court

63 posted on 12/04/2022 10:35:12 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square..."

That case was about the government restricting a private person's access to social media. The government can't do that because the government is subject to the 1st Amendment.

The government has no involvement in this James Woods saga.

I'm a fan of free speech and private property. I fully support both Elon's right to restore previously banned people and to stifle Kanye's speech on Twitter, as he just did.

It amazes me the number of people who fundamentally misunderstand what a constitutional right is - and isn't.

64 posted on 12/04/2022 10:44:44 AM PST by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | 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