Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They cite that media forums like Tweeter, facebook and a host of other social media have become politically monopolized. They are defacto, the public square of the 21st Century.
On this, even though privately owned, are the new public square soapboxes and the 1st amendment must apply to them.
Wont work, they are privately owned websites they are free to moderate or control the content as they see fit. The first amendment is still in effect because anyone that wants to can go make, host, and maintain their own website.
Bottom line if someone builds and maintains a website they are free to do whatever they want with it as long as they keep it within existing laws.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying that a company should be forced to allow political protesters against it on its privately owned property.
What is the difference between that and saying that they are REQUIRED by law to allow people, comments, posts, pictures or files to occupy space on their privately owned servers and are NOT ALLOWED to delete them off of their own privately held hard drives? Wanna talk about some government overreach, that would be a good example.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 01-06-2017 at 08:34 AM..
I agree that we can not sue an entity like Facebook BUT a lawsuit against the government can work the same way. It is the government pushing for the infringements on free speech. It is the government that can offer incentives for these companies to infringe on free speech.
Wont work, they are privately owned websites they are free to moderate or control the content as they see fit. The first amendment is still in effect because anyone that wants to can go make, host, and maintain their own website.
Bottom line if someone builds and maintains a website they are free to do whatever they want with it as long as they keep it within existing laws.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying that a company should be forced to allow political protesters against it on its privately owned property.
What is the difference between that and saying that they are REQUIRED by law to allow people, comments, posts, pictures or files to occupy space on their privately owned servers and are NOT ALLOWED to delete them off of their own privately held hard drives? Wanna talk about some government overreach, that would be a good example.
Pretty much. Just like c-d here.
And I'm GLAD of the moderation here, even though I don't always agree with individual decisions.
I know some people prefer unmoderated forums, but I don't. Still, it's good the choice exists.
Someone should check the ball size of the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.
I'd be more interested in checking the lawyer's IQ and law school standing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
