Posted on 12/02/2019 7:37:26 AM PST by fightin kentuckian
“So why was PDJT required to keep harassers on his twit feed? Didn’t the courts say that the Internet forum was akin to a public square free speech forum?”
No, that wasn’t the legal reasoning behind that decision. That case hinged on the argument that Trump was using his twitter feed in his official capacity as President, thus by blocking users, it was effectively the federal government suppressing free speech and the public’s ability to petition for redress.
Nobody else on twitter is really affected by the decision, except perhaps for other government entities or politicians using twitter in their official capacity as representatives of the federal government.
you sited supposed facts and figures, which may be, and it looks like they ARE, incorrect. If cats are dogs, that wouldnt be an opinion, it would be an incorrect statement of fact.
I don’t think I was dreaming when I heard Zuckerberg tell Congress he believed all thoughts should be out there, and censoring was wrong. (Maybe I should post this on the “hallucination” thread.)
****************
Pathological liars lie. Never trust the words of a sociopath and conman.
Well, there you go.
“Its not a matter of being fake. Its a matter of that being my opinion.
you sited supposed facts and figures, which may be, and it looks like they ARE, incorrect. If cats are dogs, that wouldnt be an opinion, it would be an incorrect statement of fact.”
You’re saying Politifact is the end all be all and their “facts” are correct? And you’re the judge of who is correct? But again, it’s not about who is correct, it’s about WHO has the right to correct ANYTHING you or I say and deem it true or false.
Without getting into your “God-given right to post anything you please”, the premise behind the claim is flawed.
That 449,000 people out of millions answered a jury summons by checking off that they were not citizens, is not proof that they really were non-citizens. People commonly lie and machinate to evade jury duty. In California, they know that the government is not likely to pursue anything that deals with illegal aliens, so it’s a free shot. If we assume the 449,000 is based on real data, the true implication is that of the 449,000, somewhere between 0 and 449,000 are illegal aliens registered to vote.
I shared a post from a popular politician but you all are missing the point. It doesn’t matter what my source was. "
I totally disbelieve that 449,000 number...
IMHO, commonsense would say that that number is ridiculously low... Probably a propaganda item planted to hide the true magnitude of the problem... Now everyone is arguing over a nice small number while the "millions" of invaders continue to vote...
The 2020 election will probably be even worse, with the spread of invader voting across the U.S. Anyone who doubts this just needs to stand in the poll lines on election day here in MD... Many of them complaining, in Spanish, about having to vote at so many locations...
“Without getting into your “God-given right to post anything you please”, the premise behind the claim is flawed.
That 449,000 people out of millions answered a jury summons by checking off that they were not citizens, is not proof that they really were non-citizens. People commonly lie and machinate to evade jury duty. In California, they know that the government is not likely to pursue anything that deals with illegal aliens, so it’s a free shot. If we assume the 449,000 is based on real data, the true implication is that of the 449,000, somewhere between 0 and 449,000 are illegal aliens registered to vote.”
Two points, there really shouldn’t be any noncitizen registered to vote, BUT as you’re aware, in California you and I and yes, the dimocrats, know that there are very likely millions of illegals who actually vote in that state and they encourage it. My premise is not incorrect. Actually there is no way do prove or disprove it because California will not allow scrutiny of their voter rolls.
Snopes. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
IIRC, and I might be wrong, but they automatically get registered when they get a drivers’ license. Since CA hands out licenses like candy to every Tom, Dick and Jose, then it stands to reason all the Joses are registered. A few year ago, CA tried to pass a bill (was it passed?) for the purpose of allowing illegals to serve on juries because they would be the defendants’ “peers”.
Is it even legal in CA to ask if any potential jurors are illegal? ICE should be outside the door to deport them immediately.
But they are a private Co. They can pretty much rule over you...
My advice don't use FB...
I never have...and NEVER will.
Fifteen or twenty years ago, it was estimated 1 in 8 people in the US was illegal.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/undocumented-immigrants-in-california/ The Pubic Policy of CA admits:
“the best estimates suggest that in 2014, the year of the most recent data available, California was home to between 2.35 and 2.6 million undocumented immigrants.” Their 2013 chart shows nearly 2.7 million.
and “Nearly one in ten California workers is an undocumented immigrant.”
Seems reasonable that of those 2.7 million, 449k would be voting age.
Didn’t the courts say that the Internet forum was akin to a public square free speech forum? Couldn’t that also be said of sites like FB which are now the modern public square where free speech should be allowed regardless of who owns it?
Trump was required to keep harassers on his Twitter feed because he is an elected official, using his Twitter feed to discuss current political issues. In other words, it's an extension of White House communications, which is public record.
Note that Twitter isn't the person specifying the blocks in that case -- it was Trump. And that's the distinction.
So far as I can tell, the Courts haven't told Twitter anything with regards to that case.
They are like the Southern Poverty Law Center of "facts."
Exactly! It's not Facebooks' f***ing job to contradict what people say. It is especially egregious because they do not censor or condemn left wing kooks posting nonsense.
40 Million people in California. Does the number 500,000 illegals sound wrong to you? I should not be surprised if the numbers of illegals in California exceed several million.
And who is gonna verify how many illegals there are in the state? Just who would do that?
This is a wrong headed, and ultimately very dangerous way to look at public speech. The telephone company was also a "private" company, but nobody ever considered the idea that they should be allowed to censor people for ideas they didn't like.
When your business model relies on PUBLIC participation to make it work, you cannot be allowed to claim "private" ownership for the purpose of denying first amendment freedom of speech rights to selected members of the public.
Our national policy should be this, and nothing else. If you serve the *PUBLIC*. you shall *NOT* be allowed to censor public speech.
Anyone who thinks differently is a fool who will assist the totalitarian left in destroying this nation through speech controls using the back door of "private" ownership.
No. I reject this claim completely. Anywhere the public gathers, each member of the public has the right to freedom of speech, whether this be online or in a public gathering.
Nobody gets to control public speech. We didn't tolerate the telephone company controlling people's speech, and we cannot tolerate any other private corporation controlling the speech of millions of Americans, and I don't give a f*** if they own the fiber or servers that are carrying it.
My position is this. We either force them to behave as "carriers" or we force them out of business. The viability of the nation cannot survive private companies controlling all dominant means of speech propagation.
We already have China pressuring Google and other silicon valley control freaks into spiking stories about unrest in China. If private corporations control speech, Governments will exert pressure on them to force them to control speech that the governments want controlled.
If private censorship of speech is allowed, Governments will use that back door to accomplish government suppression of speech.
No, it's very different. If Free Republic carried traffic for half a billion people, then we couldn't allow them to censor speech either. The difference between Free Republic and Facebook is one of scale and influence.
What can be tolerated for small organizations or "clubs" cannot be tolerated for massively used public communications infrastructure.
Wow, that is scary. I mean there are tons of fake articles on Facebook. I have to wonder how they choose the ones to fact check. It sounds like yours wasn’t even an article, just a post? So if I said “Merkel is a Nazi” would they fact check THAT? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.