Posted on 09/19/2022 11:52:35 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Bad law can always be written at any time a legislature is in session without the need of previously existing law on the matter.
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.
-PJ
The truth is tiresome to those who do not love the truth.
See ya.
“...Facebook IS limiting free speech...”
As a FB Jail Alum (many times over) you can’t even chat with friends in a PRIVATE room without having their bots nark on you and send you to jail. It’s insane. And annoying. And in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Of course, the hate whitey pages, pedo-rings and BLM and Antifa Pukes are never censored. That behavior is encouraged by default. *Rolleyes*
A printing company should not have to accommodate whatever views a person wants them to publish, regardless of them large share of the market, unless they are actually preventing competition, which is not the case here.
If FB had to depend on the likes of FReepers then it would be a MySpace at best. Instead, while it can be useful to conservatives, its degree of success is much a testimony to the declension of character in the West. Forcing it to accommodate FR seems to be too close to the Fairness doctrine.
This is like saying you can build your own system of roads independently from the roads that connect everywhere. MySpace and Facebook don't exist at the same time for a reason. Namely I go to Facebook to connect to family and friends etc. They are not on MySpace, so I don't go to MySpace. On the other hand the reason they are not on MySpace is because like me nobody goes there, because nobody else is there.
LinkedIn is where I go to connect to business contacts. I would not go to an alternate cite because they are not there. And if they are not there than there is no reason to go there.
If LinkedIn or Facebook was zapped with a space laser and were instantly gone, it would be almost no time at all before they would be replaced by an alternative where everybody was. Some platform would win and then dominate that space to the exclusion of all others. The existence of Facebook and LinkedIn occupying that space already is what prevents alternatives from having any users.
No users means no content. No content means no users. Once one platform in a given sphere has the users they have the content and the users and every competitor is shut out.
Kinda makes sense actually.
Just because you’re a set of private corporations who effectively exerise cartel power doesn’t mean you get to enforce an ideological muzzle on half the country, with or without FedGov collusion.
As someone who has worked in Silicon Valley for decades...gone to many Anti Trust training, I suggest it is you who don’t know what you are talking about.
Oh and just a clue, calling someone on FR a fascist on FR not only is really dumb, it is also not something FR members do.
The silencing of speech in Silicon Valley began almost 20 years ago.
It was pretty clear if you didn’t want to get fired, you just didn’t talk about some topics.
I’ve been in the cutting edge of High Tech for almost 40 years and saw this coming 15 years ago.
You have NO idea what they really have in mind.
Not sure what you’re saying here.
If you’re in Big Tech why would you favor government regulations and interference with your industry?
FB makes an average of $120 per US user, per year.
Stop funding the enemy and cancel your account.
Which is how capitalism works, in which a product or service that the most customers like the best will dominate, and unless they are engaging in monopolistic practices then greater marker share does not justify regulating them as a utility, or otherwise subjecting them to rules which forbid them zotting users as can be done on FR due to their ideological content. Once you set that precedent then while liberal-defined "hate speech" will be outlawed, the likes of FR will be required to allow the promotion of liberal ethos.
Capitalism is by far the best economic engine the world has ever seen with nothing else coming even close.
Capitalism even works great for murdering people with the hitman with the most successful track record totally dominating the market, and nobody having a monopoly.
Even so I am not all for letting the free market of murdering people be an unregulated monument to the absolute greatness of Capitalism.
I have a problem with the free market depriving people of basic human rights. I hope you do too.
Your strained analogy - which likens murder to censoring ideological expression in your domain - ignores the simple fact that subjecting the most successful social platforms to rules which forbid them zotting users based upon ideological content means the same can be done to the likes of FR, under the premise of not "depriving people of basic human rights." That is something liberals would push. Just as every domain from a nightclub to a mall to a church can expel unruly patrons, so also can forums.
Actually though, you have some support from CA and NJ:
In Pruneyard, a local shopping center in Campbell prohibited a group of high school students from soliciting opposition to a United Nations resolution against Zionism. The California Supreme Court held that the mall could not prohibit the students’ efforts even though their free speech activity was unrelated to the business of the shopping mall. The court compared the public areas of shopping malls to the streets and sidewalks of the central business districts of cities, which have “immemorially been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.” (Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939).) Recognizing the growing importance of the shopping center to American life, the court held that “to prohibit expressive activity in the centers would impinge on constitutional rights beyond speech rights.” (Pruneyard, 23 Cal. 3d at 907.)
New Jersey is the only state to wholeheartedly follow California’s lead. In fact, its supreme court has even gone a few steps further and affirmed the protection of speech outside of the mall context, such as in private universities and hallways
That so few states have taken California’s approach should not be too surprising. Unlike most public forums, private shopping centers are not owned by the government, paid for by taxpayers, or maintained by government employees. The private owner of a shopping center is responsible for paying property taxes, hiring employees, safeguarding the premises, maintaining the structure, and keeping the common areas clean. Shopping malls generally do not incorporate housing, town halls, libraries, places of worship, hospitals, or schools...
For free speech protections to apply on private property, the owner must open the premises for public use so as to “make it the functional equivalent of a traditional public forum.” (Albertson’s, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 118 (citing Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc., 73 Cal. App. 4th 425, 433 – 444 (1999)) - More: https://educateforlife.org/free-speech-shopping-mall/
I neither said nor implied that censoring was as great an evil as murdering. I choose murdering because it was a great evil in order to make my point easier to spot. Namely that the principle that:
It is always wrong to restrain Capitalism except in the area of monopoly.
Is more clearly seen to be in error with a more obvious example of evil like murder.
ignores the simple fact that subjecting the most successful social platforms to rules which forbid them zotting users based upon ideological content means the same can be done to the likes of FR, under the premise of not "depriving people of basic human rights."
Again if we used a more extreme case like murder as a guide to make the point more obvious: One could argue that outlawing murder could lead us to not be able to have our police or our soldiers use lethal force. Or perhaps might lead to not being able to kill animals for food. Those proposing extending the law against killing could likewise claim that it is "depriving people of basic human rights". There may even be specific cases that are borderline as to if they are a murder or a justified killing upon which reasonable people might disagree and debate. Just as the threshold of 50 million monthly users might be debated. The burden of demarcation and where the line is drawn between what is allowed and what is not is always a problem with any kind of law. But when it comes to enforcing a basic human right, that border should not be: No protection at all.
The same reasoning goes with the Texas Constitution as it does the US Constitution. This federal court has no legitimate power to decide that government can regulate private business on a state level or national level, other than removing hindrances to interstate commerce which is irrelevant here.
You used it as an analogy.
"It is always wrong to restrain Capitalism except in the area of monopoly." Which is what your argument hinges upon, yet in contrast to monopolistic practices such as effectively preventing or unfairly hindering competition, FB and Twitter both have such, are arguably the major players due to outdoing competition, building upon likes of MySpace, thus establishing brand name and loyalty.
Thus, in order to maintain your argument for content regulation for the likes of FB and Twitter by the government - vs. the likes of FR - then you must argue that the former are monopolies.
Comcast is on our area as regards cable Internet access, and whose TOS could be used to ban conservative speech, but that is allowed so far.
And so you think that using an analogy means the speaker/author is claiming things are alike in every respect? If two things were alike in every respect it would not be an analogy...since analogies are about things that have similarities in some aspects even though they differ in others. One must look for the context of the analogy is made in to see what respects the speaker/author is saying are similar and which are different. When the context is an argumentum ad absurdum the the absurd consequences (murder being justified in the particular case) must be among the aspects that differed.
"It is always wrong to restrain Capitalism except in the area of monopoly." Which is what your argument hinges upon,
No. That was a universal application of a principle that you brought up that I was refuting by showing what it led to. It is true you did not assert it applied universally, rather you applied it to the current case. Since you gave no particular reason it should apply to the specific case I thought it appropriate to at least refute that it always applied to everything.
Since the rest of your post is seemingly arguing against a position I do not hold I don't think it productive to respond to it.
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.