Posted on 09/19/2022 11:52:35 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
The issue is the reasonable expectation and possibility of free and open competition. COMPETING with these Lefties IS the answer, NOT more intrusive government.
(We’re not in the ‘60’s so the AT&T thing is irreverent.)
Guys quit trying to validate unconstitutional government.
The platforms have become de facto public utilities.
There’s no legitimate need for the government to be involved in these social networks. Competition is available and people can use other means of communication.
Let’s quit validating more and more unconstitutional government regulation and intrusion into our lives.
Today they unconstitutionally regulate who we don’t like. Tomorrow, they stop FR from zotting who FR doesn’t like.
It ABSOLUTELY is NOT irrelevant.
The very same concepts apply to AT&T as apply to Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google have created a Public Commons as it applies to Communication, much the same as AT&T was... and much the same as a wooden bulletin board in the public square was.
There are, and always have been, permissions by the government to enforce that all have access to The Commons. It was so in the 1700's and the 1960's and the 2020's.
Now, your only reasonable argument against the law would be that ATT was a monopoly on convenient and widespread communication, and that Facebook, Twitter, and Google are not defacto monopolies, and here you would be wrong.
Find me a business that isn't regulated under some Federal statute, regulation or executive order.
“Just give me chapter and verse (Article and Section) where the Constitution gives the feds power to regulate the private business like Big Tech.”
It’s right there in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
L
I believe there was a Federal judge who invoked AT&T to show the lack of efficacy of this argument, stating that -- had AT&T engaged in the censorship of political thought -- that theoretically you could compete by stringing two cans and a string between your apartment and one other persons'.
That should show the lack of efficacy of your solution.
It may, indeed, come to that... should FR be at the level where it can be considered a Public Commons.
If we get to that level -- the level of a Facebook or a Twitter -- then that would be least of our problems.
You (and many others) have unwittingly turned the Constitution on its head.
First of all, the first ten amendments are NOT a bill of rights. Communist countries grant “bills of rights” to their people.
The Declaration of Independence, the foundation for the Constitution, clearly states that our rights and freedoms come from God, not man or his government. We are born free.
The reason for the first ten amendments was the anti-federalists would not sign up for the Constitution unless there were specific REMINDERS to the government of what they could not do.
The presumption of the Constitution is that if a power is not enumerated and delegated to the feds, it is not a legitimate federal power. IE, if it not in the Constitution it is NOT a federal power.
The 9th and 10th Amendments which people fail to read, explain all of this.
Right, so is the answer MORE unconstitutional government???
Of course not. The answer is get the freaking government out of our lives and business and chain them back to the Constitution where they belong.
So you like the Left want to expand the Commerce Clause (CC) way beyond its intended use which was to facilitate and remove barriers to interstate commerce? Wresting the CC from its original intent is one of the greatest reasons we have a federal government that is 80+% unconstitutional.
This issue of course has NOTHING to do with facilitating intestate commerce, the intent of the CC.
We know for sure now that big tech has been coordinating with the federal government in relation to their censorship. This means they should no longer be considered private entities. They in fact government entities.
I agree with you on your take on the Commerce Clause, but I disagree you vis-a-vis the requirement that government involve itself in the Public Commons (as it pertains to Communication).
I suspect I will never change your mind, nor you mine, so let’s see what SCOTUS says about it, and learn to live with that.
Slow your roll there, Skippy. Unless you can get SCOTUS to reverse Gibbons and Wickard you’re on a fools errand.
And judging from your posts on this thread I’m going with “you’re a fool”.
Have a nice day.
L
Then the answer is:
1) get the feds OUT of private enterprise, NOT to give the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
2) Compete with these Lefties in the Feee market the way Trump has with “Truth Social”
The LAST thing we need is giving the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
Then the answer is:
1) get the feds OUT of private enterprise, NOT to give the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
2) Compete with these Lefties in the Feee market the way Trump has with “Truth Social”
The LAST thing we need is giving the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
The first 10 amendments are a bill of individual rights, separate from the remaining amendments which are mostly procedural.
Amendment:
-PJ
Your rationale without constitutional rationale will of course never change my mind and you should reconsider your argument in light of the Constitution AS written and ORIGINALLY intended and understood. The Constitution IS the ONLY basis for legitimate federal activities.
I am currently neutral on whether this was a good ruling or not because I am just hearing of it, and it seems to me legal rulings are often involved and its not always obvious what the ruling actually means. And like in science reporting, legal reporting very often inadvertently misleads as they try to dumb it down for us laymen.
Yeah sure, fighting for freedom and against unconstitutional Court decisions like Gibbons and Wickard is a fool’s errand. The Left loves arguments like that.
You know, the Left will NEVER call fighting us and the Constitution and our constitutionally protected freedoms “a fool’s errand” and they will never give up. But the Right has those like you in their ranks who try to demoralize those who are fighting to reinstate the Constitution to its rightful place: the Supreme Law of the Land.
Thank God there were enough in 1776 that ignored that kind of advice even though the rag-tag colonists were facing the greatest military power in the world.
Freedom is worth the fight.
Yep...
Way past it as a matter of fact!
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.