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

To: DiogenesLamp
A system in which one side can speak to the public, and the other side is frozen out, contradicts the very purpose of enfranchising freedom of speech as a necessary protection for the Republic.

Well said.

There is a great disparity in the application of the law regarding the free speech clause.

Just to touch on the basics:

Though their client base may only number in the hundreds a mom and pop bakery, a restaurant or a wedding photographer must serve all who wish to buy their products or services.

Even when the business owners disagree with or disapprove of the customer for any reason at all.

And even when there are other comparable businesses providing the same products or services.

But a social media enterprise serving milions upon millions can refuse service to anyone they disagree with or disapprove of for any reason at all.

Even though there are no other comparable options for the customer.

As an example: If your customer base, friends, fans or associates communicate primarilly on Facebook and you are barred there are no other comparable options.

It's something like saying only certain people can have a TV or a telephone, or use UPS or FED-EX or the US Post Office.

But it is much worse.


183 posted on 02/21/2018 1:06:08 PM PST by Vlad The Inhaler (The only trannie I want to see is a Muncie 4 Speed M-22 Rock Crusher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]


To: Vlad The Inhaler
But it is much worse.

Yes it is. It is far more impactful upon the election process.

189 posted on 02/21/2018 1:59:33 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | 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