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.
"in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, they ruled in a 5-4 decision that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals so they are therefore covered by the First Amendment"
I don't see anything about taxes there.
A corporation can pay zero in taxes - in fact, they can pay negative taxes (ask Trump).....and yet have Free Speech Rights. Period.
If it is going to be overturned, why haven't I see the Republican admin propose an Amendment? I can promise they'd get enough Dem votes.
"the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President."
So, wait....the SCOTUS said it was fine for a Corporation created for ONE purpose - to smear a political candidate in an election while running.
But some here say that the "leaning" of a real corporation which exists for many reasons....isn't just?
This is the dilemma of the Right. First they championed executing drug dealers and locking up non-violent offenders by the millions. Now they are talking a different tune (too late, of course). Then they told us they were about moral values....ooppss.....not relevant any more. Then they loved the fact that Big Business leaned their way and made decades of HAY out of it. But NOW, because they sense even business isn't far-right enough for their views, they want to change that.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot deny that Republicans created the bought and sold mess that is The Swamp. They wallowed in the pig stye and continue to do so as long as the Pig is Theirs.
Corporations are individual entitities for tax purposes. We tax them as individual entities. Since we do that, we have had a plethora of lawsuits that seek to define how corporations are to be treated under the law, and generally they get the same rights as individual citizens. The exception is that corporations aren't entitled to vote. And that exception, and the reasoning behind that exception, will eventually lead to the Hobby Lobby decision being overturned. The Citizens United decision was about corporations having free speech rights. That was a bad decision as well, but it will take longer to overturn than Hobby Lobby because it is easier to argue about a corporation not having religious beliefs than it is to to argue against corporations having legitimate political interests and therefore legitimate free speech. If a corporation can argue that its exercise of free speech was to benefit itself (the same way corporations can argue that political donations are intended to benefit themselves), then the argument that it does not have a right to free speech fails. It is a thing, but its a thing that can be harmed or benefited by government actions, and so as a thing it has a perspective in the debate, and arguably a right to support its perspective.
Corporations are individual entitities for tax purposes. We tax them as individual entities. Since we do that, we have had a plethora of lawsuits that seek to define how corporations are to be treated under the law, and generally they get the same rights as individual citizens. The exception is that corporations aren't entitled to vote. And that exception, and the reasoning behind that exception, will eventually lead to the Hobby Lobby decision being overturned. The Citizens United decision was about corporations having free speech rights. That was a bad decision as well, but it will take longer to overturn than Hobby Lobby because it is easier to argue about a corporation not having religious beliefs than it is to to argue against corporations having legitimate political interests and therefore legitimate free speech. If a corporation can argue that its exercise of free speech was to benefit itself (the same way corporations can argue that political donations are intended to benefit themselves), then the argument that it does not have a right to free speech fails. It is a thing, but its a thing that can be harmed or benefited by government actions, and so as a thing it has a perspective in the debate, and arguably a right to support its perspective.
Its amazing how we started with a State-created device designed to insulate business owners from personal liability in order to encourage commerce and somehow ended up with a fictitious person that does pretty much everything but breathe, complete with Constitutional rights. Dr. Frankenstein would be proud.
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Isn't the issue about providing access to all info since you're in the info business? And don't get in a hissy fit when someone prints something you don't like? An "obligation" to the truth?
Or to be direct, even if one has the right to do so, they shouldn't
If you're not saying that "providing access to all info" and an "obligation to the truth" means social media organizations should be required to allow posts by anyone, even InfoWars, then what do you mean?
But this isn’t about whether you like Jones or think he’s a reprehensible human being. Rather, this is about what it means for our society if a few tech companies should be able to decide for everyone what information is available, and what is over the line.
However, when these companies removed Jones and his content they made it much more difficult for Jones to interact with new people and maintain or create new commerce. This might not be government censorship, but it is suppressing his ideas, views, market and commerce, and those of others on his channels.
Jones was just the Canary in the Coal Mine. Since his removal as the test case, many more conservative voices have been eliminated from social media commerce, across state lines and globally, as in Jones's case.
It's not that hard to start a social media site.
Nobody has a monopoly on starting sites. Jones could start his own site. I read today there's a dating site starting up for Trumpers and Repbulicans ONLY.
That's also not a crime, btw.
In fact, I think plenty of people would welcome not running into people they don't want to date on a dating site.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Hey guys, you're putting wayyy more effort into this than the infowars folks deserve with their claims of pizza parlor basements and Sandy Hook etc.
Repeat after me:
You can still access inforwars and it's still allowed on facebook and everywhere else.
It's just a conspiracy claiming that this has happened, likely originated by the UN as part of their plans to take control of all US media and military.
Just keep repeating that back to them, demand evidence, discard any evidence provided.
As long as there's no public utility blocking InfoWars from existing at all, there's no crime.
He still has a website and can offer content, right? If so, then what's the issue? That he has less reach because he cannot advertise on various social media sites? If so, then he can start his own social media site for conspiracy theorists and advertise there. I'm sure Breitbart and the like will let him run ads.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I'm sure Breitbart and the like will let him run ads.
Even Breitbart (Mercers) are running away from many of the monsters they created....they don't want to give money to Milo and the like any more, which is why he's a couple million in debt.
Apparently there is no end to the number of sell-outs willing to say and do anything to get some millions from the right wing billionaires. Never heard a word about it from the Right...when those corporations funded the Daily Caller, Breitbart and who knows what...
Maybe these people are anti-semites?? Opps....Sheldon Adelson not only bought the Las Vegas Newspaper so it would stop reporting on him, but his wife bought the highest medal from Trump himself. Taxpayer funded medal.....
Hypocrisy is too kind of a word. Fascism actually is more apt....State Control of the Media. But only "their" state views.
When the Great Great Recession hits we are all going to be in it together again....and that's likely very soon. But, remember, 30% of the country still approved of GWB after the lies and wars and Great Recession, so maybe I am expecting too much?
As long as there's no public utility blocking InfoWars from existing at all, there's no crime.
Actually, now that the Republicans have succeeded in killing net-neutrality, that's not so clear either. For example, providers might decide to charge more money for hate-speech and reduce Jone's site to a crawl unless he pays some astronomical fees.
Actually, now that the Republicans have succeeded in killing net-neutrality, that's so clear either. For example, providers might decide to charge more money for hate-speech and reduce Jone's site to a crawl unless he pays some astronomical fees.
It isn't "we" screwing up, it's YOU. See if you can get it right this time instead of making things up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
If you're not saying that "providing access to all info" and an "obligation to the truth" means social media organizations should be required to allow posts by anyone, even InfoWars, then what do you mean?
and right on time, you make things up. lol Since when does "obligation to the truth"" = required.
Again show proof I'm trying to force facebook to take back infowars.
I'll dumb it down for you. Facebook should allow infowars back. They should not be forced to take them back.
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.
