Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
I wonder about him too. I watched American Dharma and Bannon said he had a genetic heart problem. He went to his regular diner, ate a meal with a stranger, paid the bill and then fell to the floor & died on the street
As tragic as that is, it does seem mighty fishy
I agree. This is the guy who said the Constitution was a DEAD document, when he was defending against modern day liberal "interpretations" of the amendments. He would not have tolerated any of this. Those who can't be bought need to be silenced.
And he was right. ideally I'd prefer to live in a country where no citizen would desire to desecrate our flag, but I always was reluctant to see that made into a law. But we live in such a whack world where you can't burn a rainbow/BLM flag but the US Flag is just fine to destroy.
To me - it's more a matter of public safety, property destruction and burning permits - plenty of avenues to limit such things without addressing it as a "speech" issue.
If you truly believe in the freedom of speech, flag burning must be allowed. We should also allow people to say anything, be part of any group, so long as you aren't harming others.
The Founding Fathers could have put in a provision about the flag but saw fit not to, or didn't happen to think of it.
Back when we had a Constitutional Republic (last week) we could have inserted a anti-flag burning amendment.
Flag burning should be legal, if it’s your own property and done safely etc. The protection of what the flag represents (liberty, including freedom to express yourself without state interference) is far more important than protecting an individual example of the flag itself.
In a way, I’ve always felt people who burn a US flag -safe in the knowledge they will suffer zero consequences, because of the freedoms that very flag stands for- are complimenting rather than insulting it, even though they don’t mean it that way. Burning one US flag doesn’t burn every US flag; it makes every other US flag shine a little brighter and fly a little prouder.
I just took a class in law school last semester that focused on the rule of law. We spent a week talking about free speech and what was kind of interesting was that neither side really believes in it anymore. Examples of the left abandoning it are obvious, but then you also have people on the right like Sohrab Ahmari wanting to crack down on things like drag queen story hour and pornography. Free speech is a principle of liberalism, and liberalism failed. It's probably better to just accept that and move on than to be clutching our pearls talking about free speech.
Are you out of your damned mind? That's not a "free speech" issue, that's a "don't let pedos around small children" issue. No one was saying the ugly trannies were forbidden to read children's stories; they just didn't think children should be present while the crotch-flashing nutjobs were doing it.
David French asked Amari what he would do to stop it. He said that he would pass city ordinances. French said they would get struck down under the First Amendment. He was right. I'm not sure what you know about 1A jurisprudence that French and I don't know.
The fact that the people applying your laws are corrupt and are disingenuously framing this as a free speech issue doesn't change the fact that the people objecting to drag queen story hour were OBJECTING TO THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN THERE. If trannies wanted to book time to read children's books to each other, or to their supporters, no one would have cared. It was the presence of toddlers that was the problem, not the speech itself.
This distinction doesn't matter like you think it does. What matters is the language in the legislation. Just to keep it simple for example, if you were to pass a city ordinance that said something like "No public library shall be used for drag queens to read stories to children," it is still a free speech issue even though the legislation does not purport to prohibit drag queens reading stories while not in the presence of children. I promise you that you are dead wrong on this subject.
The distinction matters. That you think it doesn't shows you're either making bad-faith arguments deliberately, or you're being trained to make bad-faith arguments. Neither is helping your country.
I know it doesn't. Feel free to show me a case or a legal brief that might convince a judge otherwise, but I don't think you can or will because you have no idea what you are talking about.
But all that proves is that our justice system is protecting tranny lunatics by conflating "a right to read to toddlers" with "free speech." You can keep going "there's no case law saying it ISN'T" until the end of days, but you know as well as I do that those are two separate issues, and "let these perverts read to your minor children" should never be protected under free speech.
10000000% we have an obligation to fight, nurture, and protect our Republic. Fuck communist and socialist. The only way they can coexist here is if we destroy our Republic. Literally completely different ideologies.
i'm seeing a lot of back and forth about freedom of speech, mainly from the left, but I read donny's every tweet and I didn't see one even suggesting violence, not one
This is why it took me over a month to believe the scotus was compromised. Maybe we’d be better prepared for the enemy within if we saw votes along political lines from the scotus all along.
- "I am using the Free Speech you're giving me to advocate for your cancellation by calling you Nazis, racists, sexists, etc, and I tell people to punch Nazis like you, maggots!"
Right-winger:
- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Do you UNDERSTAND why we're LOSING now?
I think Scalia was a cuck, sorry to say, he gave great gifts to the people who HATE our guts.
I mean, "shall not be infringed" means what it says. As a free speech absolutist, I go even further than Scalia. No federal restrictions on speech whatsoever.
If States want to impose consequences for things like blackmail or defamation or fighting words, so be it. That's federalism, and I also don't believe in 14th Amendment incorporation against the states.
It's a principled position and he was right. If I want to buy an ad for trump I have the right to do that under freedom of speech, if 100,000,000 of us get together and want to buy trump ads we each still have that right. It takes and should take a constitutional amendment to change that.
No but he isn't an ideologue, he ruled based on what the constitution says. And it says if I want to yell trump is great on tv, I can do that. If 100,000 people get together and want to yell trump is great, they can do that. And doing just that is protected free speech. Scalia was right, and if you want to change it then just amend the constitution.
He did try to rule based on the Constitution. It says NOTHING about companies having any free speech rights. NADA. ZIP. SCOTUS was 100% wrong in pulling that fabrication out of their ass.
Rights are given to citizens (NOT Foreigners in the US either!) and to the states. The Federal government has a very limited set of rights directly related to duties they must carry out.
The Constitution should be paramount. NOT prior rulings of federal judges or even SCOTUS. Yes, it takes more effort to decide when a precedent was faulty and does not follow the Constitution, but it must be done.
An obvious example would be a US District Court judge ruling that SCOTUS does not have the authority to review any cases. Then an appeals court upholds the District Court judge, and lastly SCOTUS itself upholds the appeals court, based on precedent.
Yes, they really are that stupid and stubborn at times.
SCOTUS only relies on SCOTUS precedent, not lower district's precedent. Rights are not even given by the government or even the constitution, we just have them endowed by our creator and this fact is codified by our constitution. Also saying the rights in the constitution was only meant for citizens is untrue. They are restrictions placed on our government to protect everyone from it within the united states. Some of these supreme court rulings establishing that date back to the 1800's.
saying the rights in the constitution was only meant for citizens is untrue.
They are restrictions placed on our government
This is correct.
to protect everyone from it within the united states.
This is not. Otherwise slavery would never have been allowed. Women would not have been prohibited from voting. The founding fathers certainly didn't misunderstand the constitution that they wrote themselves.
Some of these supreme court rulings establishing that date back to the 1800's.
That's another SCOTUS fabrication. The expansion of the 14th amendment rights were derived from battles between the states, the federal government and private entities building railroad or owning land the railroads wanted. The application to include all people was a further judicially created expansion of this.
Using SCOTUS to support SCOTUS decisions is like using CNN to fact check CNN.
It is not false, SCOTUS overturns lower court precedent all the time, DC banning all handguns for example, the lower court set precedent upholding the ban. SCOTUS overturned it. They will use lower courts precedent in their opinions but only rely on precedent previously made by SCOTUS.
Slavery was written into the constitution, that's a terrible example. Also originally it restricted the federal government from infringement on those rights, not from the states. That's why you see state constitutions sometimes having their own mimic of the bill of rights in it. Like you mentioned the 14th amendment expanded it to the states, and Scalia disagreed with that ruling!!! But since it was SCOTUS precedent he followed it.
Those rights protected everyone within the US from the federal government originally, and expanded it to the states with the SCOTUS ruling on the 14th.
Well we live in a reality in which when Globalists own our entire government they can just rig the election and win it, and then call PATRIOTS the domestic terrorists when they stand inside a building after being let inside.
Was the federal courthouse in Portland not restricted? Is it not restricted to throw bricks at Feds and blind them with green lasers? Is it not restricted to murder 40+ during BLM protests, including 9 cops?
Those patriots were USHERED in . The police LET them in, so the Dems can frame us as Domestic terrorists (they were already labeling us as such for the last year already).
If you are in favor of unlimited dark money in politics, you are in great shape.
Whether there's disclosure & transparency laws for political donations is a separate question - I could agree with that.
But, yes, "unlimited" (although, obviously, you have to earn the money before you can donate it).
Socialists have UNLIMITED political capital to spread their propaganda, brainwashing everybody from birth. Private interests fail to keep up - that's why government keeps growing...
I somehow don't think Bezos or Musk or Soros have to worry about earning more money.
The GA senate runoff didn't even come to a Bil.
Democrats raised more money, democrats won. This is the reality of Citizens United. If Dems have more money and are willing to spend it, GOP better be ready to lose almost every election.
I somehow don't think Bezos or Musk or Soros have to worry about earning more money.
Which is why you're not a billionaire. 🤔
The richest don't even need to donate money they have so many other ways to push their agenda. It's the less rich more honest people that are the most empowered by donating to political causes.
That's why we're better. Our people vote for what is right. Do you think those pieces of shit liberals on 7th sc would vote against their cult to do what is right?
Flag burning is only bad if the flag stands for something good.
The U.S. flag now stands for communists winning the popular vote by 7,000,000! (They cheated in swing states, but by far less.)
It stands for lies, lockdowns, endless growth of government, endless wars, communist brainwashing of children in government "schools", government-sanctioned racist lies against White people, mandatory homosexuality worship, etc, etc, etc.
SECESSION!
SECESSION!
SECESSION!
I'd rather live in a much smaller country where the number of communists is ZERO!
That fine man was murdered by people from his own government. It was obvious then to anybody paying attention to the details. It should be readily apparent to anybody now who has more than 300 brain cells, in light of current events.
The only argument right now that could maybe have teeth is that social media is modern day "public square". It used to be open to the public, back in the day, now it's owned by twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. and they are all uniformly closing it off to conservatives.
Well it is. A lot of people spend their lives online. This last year we were told we couldn't leave our homes, leaving the only place to communicate to be online. Some of these companies need anti-trust laws slapped on them like the railroads, and maybe make them utilities. This as a clear infringement of the First Amendment if you accept that first statement.
He's trying to argue that since companies own the platforms they can do anything they want on it even if it's illegal. So by that argument if you are in a private place that I own, I can gag you, rob you or even murder you with no consequence. It's not a slippery slope, its exactly what they are proposing. They are pushing their hand with the mass censorship but people aren't that brainwashed to see evil run amok.
Contact a lawyer, my dude. Have them assess the situation and see what they think. Marsh v. Alabama popped up in 2016 when people were talking about Trump being banned from Twitter then.
It seemed to have pretty good traction at the time. The wording is very clear. If you open your home to the public, you do not have absolute dominion and protected speech cannot be restricted. If Twitter was, say, invite only, then it would absolutely be able to restrict it. But it is a public platform, wide open to the public.
Past, what’s the difference when these big tech corporations have their executives working in the government and the government has its former staffers working in those big tech corporations? It’s one big incestuous cabal. Those oligarchs cornered the market with the government’s blessing, and now they do the government’s bidding to silence opponents.
Scalia was murdered. It's more and more obvious everyday with the brazen shit they pull.
Especially with wikileaks showing the "wet works" email
I bet it's an open secret like Epstein and they all know it
PODESTA AND ROBERTS ARE BOTH GUILTY OF ORCHESTRATING IT AS WELL.
So was Andrew Breitbart. Natural causes at 43 years old? Kiss my ass, I'm not a moron.
I wonder about him too. I watched American Dharma and Bannon said he had a genetic heart problem. He went to his regular diner, ate a meal with a stranger, paid the bill and then fell to the floor & died on the street As tragic as that is, it does seem mighty fishy
I agree. This is the guy who said the Constitution was a DEAD document, when he was defending against modern day liberal "interpretations" of the amendments. He would not have tolerated any of this. Those who can't be bought need to be silenced.
RIP Scalia.
Why do you think they killed him..
And he was right. ideally I'd prefer to live in a country where no citizen would desire to desecrate our flag, but I always was reluctant to see that made into a law. But we live in such a whack world where you can't burn a rainbow/BLM flag but the US Flag is just fine to destroy.
To me - it's more a matter of public safety, property destruction and burning permits - plenty of avenues to limit such things without addressing it as a "speech" issue.
I wipe my asshole clean of shit with little bits of torn up blm flags
If you truly believe in the freedom of speech, flag burning must be allowed. We should also allow people to say anything, be part of any group, so long as you aren't harming others.
The Founding Fathers could have put in a provision about the flag but saw fit not to, or didn't happen to think of it. Back when we had a Constitutional Republic (last week) we could have inserted a anti-flag burning amendment.
I don't want to make burning flags illegal. I don't like when people do not, but it's protected under the first amendment.
Flag burning should be legal, if it’s your own property and done safely etc. The protection of what the flag represents (liberty, including freedom to express yourself without state interference) is far more important than protecting an individual example of the flag itself.
In a way, I’ve always felt people who burn a US flag -safe in the knowledge they will suffer zero consequences, because of the freedoms that very flag stands for- are complimenting rather than insulting it, even though they don’t mean it that way. Burning one US flag doesn’t burn every US flag; it makes every other US flag shine a little brighter and fly a little prouder.
Spent his last day on earth in AF1 with the "Obola virus." Was he still alive when dumped at the "vine yard...???"
Too bad he died of perfectly natural causes so as not to be a voice during the current constitutional crisis.
I just took a class in law school last semester that focused on the rule of law. We spent a week talking about free speech and what was kind of interesting was that neither side really believes in it anymore. Examples of the left abandoning it are obvious, but then you also have people on the right like Sohrab Ahmari wanting to crack down on things like drag queen story hour and pornography. Free speech is a principle of liberalism, and liberalism failed. It's probably better to just accept that and move on than to be clutching our pearls talking about free speech.
Are you out of your damned mind? That's not a "free speech" issue, that's a "don't let pedos around small children" issue. No one was saying the ugly trannies were forbidden to read children's stories; they just didn't think children should be present while the crotch-flashing nutjobs were doing it.
David French asked Amari what he would do to stop it. He said that he would pass city ordinances. French said they would get struck down under the First Amendment. He was right. I'm not sure what you know about 1A jurisprudence that French and I don't know.
The fact that the people applying your laws are corrupt and are disingenuously framing this as a free speech issue doesn't change the fact that the people objecting to drag queen story hour were OBJECTING TO THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN THERE. If trannies wanted to book time to read children's books to each other, or to their supporters, no one would have cared. It was the presence of toddlers that was the problem, not the speech itself.
This distinction doesn't matter like you think it does. What matters is the language in the legislation. Just to keep it simple for example, if you were to pass a city ordinance that said something like "No public library shall be used for drag queens to read stories to children," it is still a free speech issue even though the legislation does not purport to prohibit drag queens reading stories while not in the presence of children. I promise you that you are dead wrong on this subject.
The distinction matters. That you think it doesn't shows you're either making bad-faith arguments deliberately, or you're being trained to make bad-faith arguments. Neither is helping your country.
I know it doesn't. Feel free to show me a case or a legal brief that might convince a judge otherwise, but I don't think you can or will because you have no idea what you are talking about.
But all that proves is that our justice system is protecting tranny lunatics by conflating "a right to read to toddlers" with "free speech." You can keep going "there's no case law saying it ISN'T" until the end of days, but you know as well as I do that those are two separate issues, and "let these perverts read to your minor children" should never be protected under free speech.
Wouldn’t have to see it because he would have voted with Thomas and Alito to hear the Texas case.
He was FAR too principled to be in the job he was in.....so Podesta had him murdered for $15 million.
R.I.P.
10000000% we have an obligation to fight, nurture, and protect our Republic. Fuck communist and socialist. The only way they can coexist here is if we destroy our Republic. Literally completely different ideologies.
I remember that ruling well...I didn't like it while I knew it was the right decision
But now you cant burn a BLM flag...FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Them!!!
RIP Scalia
i'm seeing a lot of back and forth about freedom of speech, mainly from the left, but I read donny's every tweet and I didn't see one even suggesting violence, not one
Marsh v Alabama
The oligarchs can’t buy the public square to do a run around the 1st amendment. The public and US military invented the internet.
This is why it took me over a month to believe the scotus was compromised. Maybe we’d be better prepared for the enemy within if we saw votes along political lines from the scotus all along.
Leftist:
- "I am using the Free Speech you're giving me to advocate for your cancellation by calling you Nazis, racists, sexists, etc, and I tell people to punch Nazis like you, maggots!"
Right-winger:
- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Do you UNDERSTAND why we're LOSING now?
I think Scalia was a cuck, sorry to say, he gave great gifts to the people who HATE our guts.
Murdered him
He would have been a third yes vote to hear the Texas case
I mean, "shall not be infringed" means what it says. As a free speech absolutist, I go even further than Scalia. No federal restrictions on speech whatsoever.
If States want to impose consequences for things like blackmail or defamation or fighting words, so be it. That's federalism, and I also don't believe in 14th Amendment incorporation against the states.
They section 9'd Scalia.
should of used my pillows
SAD!
Yeah, I hate that guy.
He was the one that backed Citizens United.. The worst ruling in modern times.
The ruling basically allows companies to donate ANY AMOUNT of money to candidates under the guise of freedom of speech.
Citizens United wasn’t just about money. During oral arguments, Alito asked if the government could ban books with regards to elections. And the government lawyer said yes, which is insanely alarming. https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-book-banning/
Ya know, I am of a mind that unlimited dark money pouring into elections is a bit more problematic than theoretical book bans.
And I'm glad you're not a judge.
It's a principled position and he was right. If I want to buy an ad for trump I have the right to do that under freedom of speech, if 100,000,000 of us get together and want to buy trump ads we each still have that right. It takes and should take a constitutional amendment to change that.
We are talking about reality and in reality, whoever spends the most money wins an election over 90% of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/
You gotta decide, do you just want rich people to be able to buy whatever candidate they want? Cause that is what this ruling allows.
100 million of us STILL cannot outspend just a few uber rich people.
No but he isn't an ideologue, he ruled based on what the constitution says. And it says if I want to yell trump is great on tv, I can do that. If 100,000 people get together and want to yell trump is great, they can do that. And doing just that is protected free speech. Scalia was right, and if you want to change it then just amend the constitution.
He did try to rule based on the Constitution. It says NOTHING about companies having any free speech rights. NADA. ZIP. SCOTUS was 100% wrong in pulling that fabrication out of their ass.
Rights are given to citizens (NOT Foreigners in the US either!) and to the states. The Federal government has a very limited set of rights directly related to duties they must carry out.
The Constitution should be paramount. NOT prior rulings of federal judges or even SCOTUS. Yes, it takes more effort to decide when a precedent was faulty and does not follow the Constitution, but it must be done.
An obvious example would be a US District Court judge ruling that SCOTUS does not have the authority to review any cases. Then an appeals court upholds the District Court judge, and lastly SCOTUS itself upholds the appeals court, based on precedent.
Yes, they really are that stupid and stubborn at times.
SCOTUS only relies on SCOTUS precedent, not lower district's precedent. Rights are not even given by the government or even the constitution, we just have them endowed by our creator and this fact is codified by our constitution. Also saying the rights in the constitution was only meant for citizens is untrue. They are restrictions placed on our government to protect everyone from it within the united states. Some of these supreme court rulings establishing that date back to the 1800's.
SCOTUS only relies on SCOTUS precedent
This is false.
This is correct.
This is not. Otherwise slavery would never have been allowed. Women would not have been prohibited from voting. The founding fathers certainly didn't misunderstand the constitution that they wrote themselves.
That's another SCOTUS fabrication. The expansion of the 14th amendment rights were derived from battles between the states, the federal government and private entities building railroad or owning land the railroads wanted. The application to include all people was a further judicially created expansion of this.
Using SCOTUS to support SCOTUS decisions is like using CNN to fact check CNN.
It is not false, SCOTUS overturns lower court precedent all the time, DC banning all handguns for example, the lower court set precedent upholding the ban. SCOTUS overturned it. They will use lower courts precedent in their opinions but only rely on precedent previously made by SCOTUS.
Slavery was written into the constitution, that's a terrible example. Also originally it restricted the federal government from infringement on those rights, not from the states. That's why you see state constitutions sometimes having their own mimic of the bill of rights in it. Like you mentioned the 14th amendment expanded it to the states, and Scalia disagreed with that ruling!!! But since it was SCOTUS precedent he followed it.
Those rights protected everyone within the US from the federal government originally, and expanded it to the states with the SCOTUS ruling on the 14th.
And Dems always far outraise GOP in national races
Well we live in a reality in which when Globalists own our entire government they can just rig the election and win it, and then call PATRIOTS the domestic terrorists when they stand inside a building after being let inside.
That is a restricted building, can we be honest without ourselves for second?
We keep acting like all those patriots were angels, that shit aint the case.
Was the federal courthouse in Portland not restricted? Is it not restricted to throw bricks at Feds and blind them with green lasers? Is it not restricted to murder 40+ during BLM protests, including 9 cops?
Those patriots were USHERED in . The police LET them in, so the Dems can frame us as Domestic terrorists (they were already labeling us as such for the last year already).
Oh you didn't hear?
Those were not BLM protestors, those were Patriot Plants sent to make BLM look bad, those BLM/antifa folks are all angels.
This is our new reality, zero accountability and infinite finger pointing, come on in and sit a spell, get a window seat.
Oh yeah, I forgot the Biden administration and mentally disabled far left Pedo celebrities were bailing out Trump supporters 😂😂😂
Only because we aren't organized.
I think part of the problem is corporate personhood, which lets people shift all kinds of liabilities and rights to a legal entity.
I agree, that's the main problem.
Why is there a restriction on individual contributions ($5000 or whatever it is) But a corporation can contribute unlimited?
That is freedom of speech. Who are you to dictate how much I can spend on the instruments through which my speech is conveyed?
Im not on the SCOTUS, I didn't make a ruling.
If you are in favor of unlimited dark money in politics, you are in great shape.
Whether there's disclosure & transparency laws for political donations is a separate question - I could agree with that.
But, yes, "unlimited" (although, obviously, you have to earn the money before you can donate it).
Socialists have UNLIMITED political capital to spread their propaganda, brainwashing everybody from birth. Private interests fail to keep up - that's why government keeps growing...
I somehow don't think Bezos or Musk or Soros have to worry about earning more money.
The GA senate runoff didn't even come to a Bil.
Democrats raised more money, democrats won. This is the reality of Citizens United. If Dems have more money and are willing to spend it, GOP better be ready to lose almost every election.
Who needs a hacker, just buy the election.
Which is why you're not a billionaire. 🤔
The richest don't even need to donate money they have so many other ways to push their agenda. It's the less rich more honest people that are the most empowered by donating to political causes.
Please tell me about how you earned your billions..
I neither confirm nor deny the crazy rumors about my hidden wealth.
Supposedly I've been doing programming / Web / database work since the 90s. Then I allegedly invested much of my savings in Bitcoin for pennies.
If the IRS could prove that, I'd be under the jail. 😏
Honestly, I think RBG would even be shocked by what's happened this election...
That said, fuck both of them. They were both politicized and both compromised.
Well Scalia also voted in favor of illegals voting as long as they had a driver's license.
That's why we're better. Our people vote for what is right. Do you think those pieces of shit liberals on 7th sc would vote against their cult to do what is right?
We need a corporate sedition and corporate treason act
You have to imagine it because apparently John Robert's knew Scalia was going to be murdered.
Flag burning is only bad if the flag stands for something good.
The U.S. flag now stands for communists winning the popular vote by 7,000,000! (They cheated in swing states, but by far less.)
It stands for lies, lockdowns, endless growth of government, endless wars, communist brainwashing of children in government "schools", government-sanctioned racist lies against White people, mandatory homosexuality worship, etc, etc, etc.
SECESSION!
SECESSION!
SECESSION!
I'd rather live in a much smaller country where the number of communists is ZERO!
That fine man was murdered by people from his own government. It was obvious then to anybody paying attention to the details. It should be readily apparent to anybody now who has more than 300 brain cells, in light of current events.
MARSH V. ALABAMA. Companies cannot restrict protected speech!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Companies cannot restrict protected speech.
ISPs and Celluar providers can block platforms too. It's not simply about making a new platform.
It has everything to do with it. No fucking company is above a Countries laws.
No, not how this works.
The only argument right now that could maybe have teeth is that social media is modern day "public square". It used to be open to the public, back in the day, now it's owned by twitter, facebook, reddit, etc. and they are all uniformly closing it off to conservatives.
Well it is. A lot of people spend their lives online. This last year we were told we couldn't leave our homes, leaving the only place to communicate to be online. Some of these companies need anti-trust laws slapped on them like the railroads, and maybe make them utilities. This as a clear infringement of the First Amendment if you accept that first statement.
He's trying to argue that since companies own the platforms they can do anything they want on it even if it's illegal. So by that argument if you are in a private place that I own, I can gag you, rob you or even murder you with no consequence. It's not a slippery slope, its exactly what they are proposing. They are pushing their hand with the mass censorship but people aren't that brainwashed to see evil run amok.
The government is social media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
This is the key.
Very interesting. What say you to class action against the big tech for censorship?
Contact a lawyer, my dude. Have them assess the situation and see what they think. Marsh v. Alabama popped up in 2016 when people were talking about Trump being banned from Twitter then.
It seemed to have pretty good traction at the time. The wording is very clear. If you open your home to the public, you do not have absolute dominion and protected speech cannot be restricted. If Twitter was, say, invite only, then it would absolutely be able to restrict it. But it is a public platform, wide open to the public.
Past, what’s the difference when these big tech corporations have their executives working in the government and the government has its former staffers working in those big tech corporations? It’s one big incestuous cabal. Those oligarchs cornered the market with the government’s blessing, and now they do the government’s bidding to silence opponents.
Back then, people had to print their own pamphlets or whatever with their own money to spread their words.