Posted on 08/05/2018 8:49:52 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Terrence K. Williams (brother of Candace Owens):
Twitter banned my sister @RealCandaceO from tweeting because she supposedly violated their rules. Being a Black Conservative/ Trump supporter is a Twitter violation
It’s a war against Trump Supporters!
Twitter refused to block the liberals who call us the N word & coons
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
About all the interest in social media I can stand is Freep, which is also information and sometimes informed, logical discourse. Sometimes, anyway.
Not hardly. It’s a privately owned forum. It’s legal for the owner and administrator to censor, just as Jim can zot leftards off of Freep, and a football team owner can fire a player for taking a knee on the field, and Roseanne could lose her sitcom over a tweet. She had contractual clauses she could have used to push back, but chose not to. But that’s contractual, not free speech. First Amendment only applies to government action against speech.
That’s not how Twitter works.
Please elaborate.
Yes, this is the challenge. They need to address, as well, are they a content service or service provider. If they are a content service, wherein they want to control the message, then they own the message and should be sueable for said content. Otherwise, if they are a delivery service, they disavow the content and have no liability for it. I don't see how they can have both.
Twitter and FB are FREE services so that gives them a lot of latitude. However they will likely respond if there is enough public and congressional pressure and outrage. Going after half the public can’t be good for their stock.
If a private business violates a citizens civil rights it’s not illegal?? For example, can a private business legally put a sign in the window “no blacks allowed” and refuse black business?
“If a private business violates a citizens civil rights it’s not illegal?? For example, can a private business legally put a sign in the window “no blacks allowed” and refuse black business?”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race.
All POTUS has to do is find another social media platform, quit Twitter, and start using the new one. Twitter disaster!
I am beginning to think Political views need protection just like race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.
It’s a civil right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
It can be argued that the socials are the 21st century places of public accommodation, the virtual public square. What good is having a First amendment if you are driven from the public square? And if you a driven from the public square do you really have First amendment rights at all? These questions may soon be decided. What the socials are hoping is they can influence the results of the November elections and with a Dem majority they will have no worries about banning people for conservative political beliefs.
“I am beginning to think Political views need protection just like race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.”
How would you protect political views, and would each and every political view be protected in private businesses?
How would such a federal law work?
“It can be argued that the socials are the 21st century places of public accommodation, the virtual public square. What good is having a First amendment if you are driven from the public square?”
What exactly do you mean by “socials?”
And how does private property become a “public square?”
The socials shouldn’t be censoring political thought. Okay? I think they run into problems when they are shown to be preventing the free exercise of the rights that every American enjoys for no reason other than their own political bias. That’s it. There is no public good advanced. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are free to hold their political beliefs as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of the individual user to practice theirs. When this case comes before The Supreme Court, they will lose. There are other issues involved as well having to do with campaign finance laws and the laws governing for-profit companies political contributions
Since 2016, Trump’s base has been largely purged off social media and the narrow victories last night are, at least in part, the end result.
“When this case comes before The Supreme Court, they will lose.”
So, you want legislation from the Bench that will dictate to private companies the manner in which they must conduct their business?
I favor a market approach.
If the consumer does not like the editorial polices of Facebook and Twitter, the consumer can elect not to use Facebook or Twitter.
If the shareholders object to the editorial polices of Facebook and Twitter, those shareholders can dump their shares.
Investors can then refuse to buy Facebook and Twitter stock.
At that point, the values of those companies will plummet and they will fire their Boards or Directors and then change their editorial polices.
“I am beginning to think Political views need protection just like race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, military service, or disability.”
How would you protect political views, and would each and every political view be protected in private businesses?
How would such a federal law work?
I didn’t say it was a perfect plan. :)
I respect that. I just think they are too big and powerful for that to work. It would be like trying to boycott a utility company.
“It would be like trying to boycott a utility company.”
No.
Having water and electricity is a necessity.
Logging on to Facebook is not.
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.