Even ACLU thinks Twitter banning President Trump is a step waaay too far.....
proud republican wrote:
It's called 1st Amendment . ...The same Ammendment where Ayatollah and Xi Jinping can spread h**e and lies about American people . .
The constitution holds no sway where social media is concerned. NONE of the social media companies are owned by the federal, state or local government entities, as such, they are not held to the constraints set forth in the constitution to honor any such rights and they have a responsibility to maintain order on their own sites. ANYBODY inciting violence, destruction or i**********n on social media outlets should be constrained and face criminal and/or civil liabilities for their actions, not just Trump, not just conservatives, ANYBODY!
Tiptop789 wrote:
They're are many things you can't post on the internet.
No doubt, why do all these fools think social media companies are beholden to the first amendment? The only entit(y)(ies) that is/are constrained by the first amendment is/are a governmental entity or government grant(s) dependent entity, which ARE subject to the constraints of the first amendment, all other entities are NOT beholden to the first amendment, NONE!
proud republican wrote:
Did you forget Kavanaugh confirmation / hearings ???Over 200 so called protesters were arrested when they stormed the Senate building . ..You probably would say they've exercised their right to protest , but so did these protesters on Wed as horrible as it was...))Than we have A****a and B*M thugs last summer who destroyed lives and properties which your party called "peaceful " protesters . ... Who should be going to prison than after k*****g and injuring many police officers . .. harris your future VP even paid bail for these thugs......I call this double standard!!!!
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrestsDid you forget Kavanaugh confirmation / hearing... (
show quote)
While what they did was unproductive, ineffective, disruptive and somewhat criminal, what THEY did does not even come close to being comparable to what the i**********nists did. For one thing, they were in the building legally, they DID NOT "storm the Capitol" as you claim, they only became unwelcome when they acted out. Secondly, they were non-violent, unlike the lunatics that stormed the Capitol on the sixth. Why you insist on making a comparison like that is beyond me, the two groups are nothing alike, apples and oranges.
Make a proper comparison of two similar situations and we can discuss THAT comparison but this comparison is dead in the water due to it's DRASTIC, GLARING, dis-similarities.
ChJoe wrote:
Yes, the ACLU is dedicated to the preservation of constitutional rights.
Very good point but since the social media companies are not beholden to the first amendment, they are overstepping a bit here. They could make the argument that as long as the posters are not breaking rules clearly stated in the company's ToS and NOT breaking the law/advocating for others to break the law, that they should not face unjust censorship, THAT I would fully support. Sadly, those exceptions would NOT prevent social media companies from taking action in Trump's case because sadly and embarrassingly, Trump not only broke the rules clearly stated in the ToS's, he was ALSO breaking the law and advocating that others should break the law. I have no choice but to side with the social media sites in this case.
Tiptop789 wrote:
Yes and they were arrested. How many Wed, 37?
And more to come. They are still working to identify the rest and for far more serious offenses than those 200+ that merely created disruptions and were mildly unruly in PR's "comparison".
SSDD wrote:
Very good point but since the social media companies are not beholden to the first amendment, they are overstepping a bit here. They could make the argument that as long as the posters are not breaking rules clearly stated in the company's ToS and NOT breaking the law/advocating for others to break the law, that they should not face unjust censorship, THAT I would fully support. Sadly, those exceptions would NOT prevent social media companies from taking action in Trump's case because sadly and embarrassingly, Trump not only broke the rules clearly stated in the ToS's, he was ALSO breaking the law and advocating that others should break the law. I have no choice but to side with the social media sites in this case.
Very good point but since the social media compani... (
show quote)
If they are not beholden to the first amendment then I can choose not to serve gays, t*********rs, girls, guys or what ever, right?
Gatsby wrote:
“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”
John F. Kennedy
The rights of American citizens do not extend to social media sites, they are not beholden to the constitutional constraints.
jelun wrote:
I doubt that anyone has forgotten that.
I have forgotten, and maybe you can remind me, how many people died in those demonstrations? How many electronics were stolen? Lecterns? How many participants bashed C*****l P****e in the head with fire extinguishers? Who broke into Majority Leader McConnell's office?
Are you sure you don't mean Speaker Pelosi's office?
nwtk2007 wrote:
If they are not beholden to the first amendment then I can choose not to serve gays, t*********rs, girls, guys or what ever, right?
You can certainly try but there ARE certain things that even privately held companies are not allowed to do, discrimination being one of those things.
proud republican wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/kimzetter/status/1347733935661305858
I am a member of the ACLU. They sometimes go a far way to make a point. They even said that American n**is have a right to march in a suburb of a Chicago neighborhood filled with holocaust survivors. I didn't like it, but supported it anyway.
SSDD wrote:
The rights of American citizens do not extend to social media sites, they are not beholden to the constitutional constraints.
There are no exemptions for social media, freedom of expression extends equally to all, or to none.
P.S. Don't bother to respond, you have surrendered your right to dissent.
Gatsby wrote:
There are no exemptions for social media, freedom of expression extends equally to all, or to none.
P.S. Don't bother to respond, you have surrendered your right to dissent.
Wrong again, they are NOT a governmental body, the only ones truly bound by the constitution. The constitution only lays down the rules the GOVERNMENT has to abide by. If a door to door salesman comes to your house, are you REQUIRED to allow them their freedom of speech? You can't just slam the door in their face and go back to doing wh**ever else you may prefer to do rather than listen to their sales pitch? Go read the damned thing again, if you have ANY reading comprehension and you read the damned thing, you will be able to discern that the constitution of the United States of America merely lays down the rules THE GOVERNMENT is required to abide by, not individuals, not companies, not foreign nations, OUR GOVERNMENT and our government alone is bound to abide by those rules and nothing or nobody else, PERIOD! For being "constitutionalists" as conservatives always claim to be, you people know so little about what it is, what it says and what it's purpose is.
Edit: And to prove my point, before I even replied to you, you even added "P.S. Don't bother to respond, you have surrendered your right to dissent.". You do know that only proves my point, that we are not required, as individuals, to abide by the constitutional constraints laid out within the constitution. Awesome job proving my point for me by the way. Now I will exercise my constitutional rights and disagree with your asinine assumptions.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.