[Freedom56v2]

Is any of this Constitutional?

[Enlightened1]

It is a clear violation of our 1st and 4th Amendments. This is overreaching saying we can’t have our own opinions and talk to others.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

They think that if private corporations do it, they can foist any Commie totalitarian crap on us. But there’s no way the Feds partnering with private companies to police our speech is going to fly, for the same reason why cops just can’t send in some random civilian to break into your home.

[TheCipher]

Is any of this Constitutional?

Yes, because OFFICIALLY it is not the government doing it, just "friends" and "allies" of the government. That is how Biden gets around it.

[Chickensoup]

What Constitution?

[rarestia]

They openly stole a Federal election. Do you honestly think they give a damn about the Constitution?

[mewzilla]

The republic is dead.

The Constitution is no longer a problem for Deep State.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Is any of this Constitutional?
—

Well it seems the Democrats have found a way (temporarily) around the Constitutional restrictions. However I think a case could be made that the carriers could be defined as agents of the state if they are following orders issued by the government (acting without proper court orders to do so)and as such would be subject to the same restrictions as the government.

I am not an expert, just my opinion

[Shady]

Of course, not, but do they care?

[Roccus]

Is any of this Constitutional?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[daniel1212]

In the present judgement of those who are appointed by those who are elected, validly or not, it is unconstitutional to deny a person or entity service or otherwise discriminate because of their race, ethnicity, sexual "preference," national origin, religion or similar - provided that it the real reason - but it is not unconstitutional to deny persons the service of a message based upon the ideological nature of it, and can exclude persons who do not agree to the ideological, etc. term of service. Thus FR can zot liberals and or certain content.

In the case of Masterpiece bakery, Jack Philips did not deny two sodomite service, as they could purchase anything off the shelf, but he denied them service of creating a custom work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral (God's law) and illegal (state law at the time) sexual union. But this was judged to be unlawful discrimination since the denial was linked to what the couple was, a protected class.

Had he denied a heterosexual couple the service of creating a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an immoral wedding then possible he would not have been charged, though most likely the Civil Rights commission would have done so anyway. And not a Muslim baker who refused to make a special work to celebrate the anniversary of the state of Israel.

Requiring private entities to provide service to anyone would require entities like FR to accommodate liberals. And even treating the likes of Facebook as public utilities will not stop them from discrimination against conservatives, since that is likely what the Left intends on doing. No phone or gas to those who will not salute the flag of Sodom.