Discussion:
Social media Election Day Nightmares
Add Reply
Pete
2020-09-29 18:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
-- and the days after -- are going to get out of control:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
moviePig
2020-09-29 19:10:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
'2020 foresight' (c)

Actually, it's already alarming that anyone's even talking about such
eventualities. Otoh, while it's hard not to see Trump/Trumpers as the
proximate cause, I wonder if it wasn't always a sooner-or-later thing.
Pete
2020-09-29 21:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
'2020 foresight' (c)
Actually, it's already alarming that anyone's even talking about such
eventualities. Otoh, while it's hard not to see Trump/Trumpers as the
proximate cause, I wonder if it wasn't always a sooner-or-later thing.
Yeah, though I've seen some posts here considering a similar future.

The fact that Trump is in the picture at all must surely be a symptom
rather than a cause. I have suspicion that the rate-of-change in Society
is a major factor. (And I mean well pre-Covid. Tech is developing faster
than it ever has in history, and even though it's often welcome, Society
is feeling the strain. And of course Society is shifting, as well.)

Maybe there are cyclic, pendulum-swing effects, too. Sorry Mr Godwin,
but I can't help thinking of the 'Twenties "Golden Age" followed by
the rise of the Nazis. It was looking like our own Golden Age for a while...

-- Pete --
moviePig
2020-09-29 21:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pete
Post by moviePig
Post by Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
'2020 foresight' (c)
Actually, it's already alarming that anyone's even talking about such
eventualities. Otoh, while it's hard not to see Trump/Trumpers as the
proximate cause, I wonder if it wasn't always a sooner-or-later thing.
Yeah, though I've seen some posts here considering a similar future.
The fact that Trump is in the picture at all must surely be a symptom
rather than a cause. I have suspicion that the rate-of-change in Society
is a major factor. (And I mean well pre-Covid. Tech is developing faster
than it ever has in history, and even though it's often welcome, Society
is feeling the strain. And of course Society is shifting, as well.)
Maybe there are cyclic, pendulum-swing effects, too. Sorry Mr Godwin,
but I can't help thinking of the 'Twenties "Golden Age" followed by
the rise of the Nazis. It was looking like our own Golden Age for a while...
The apt sci-fi reference may be 1956's FORBIDDEN PLANET...
RichA
2020-09-29 22:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
'2020 foresight' (c)
Actually, it's already alarming that anyone's even talking about such
eventualities. Otoh, while it's hard not to see Trump/Trumpers as the
proximate cause, I wonder if it wasn't always a sooner-or-later thing.
All evidence to the contrary; witness the looting, burning, rioting. Not Trump supporters, the LEFT.
Ed Stasiak
2020-09-30 01:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pete
Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
Too important a story to leave as just a link.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54311383
Sep.29, 2020

US 2020 election: Social media's nightmare scenario

There's an election scenario that is giving social media company bosses nightmares.

The period between the polls closing and the declared result usually takes a few hours.

But this time it's likely to take days - perhaps even weeks. Millions of postal votes will take time to process.

Social media companies believe this period - of claim and counterclaim - could push the US over the edge.

If both Donald Trump and Joe Biden declare themselves the winner, there are fears of violence between the already polarised communities of the US.

And all of this could be played out on social media.

Three weeks ago, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg said he was "worried".

On Facebook he wrote: "With our nation so divided and election results potentially taking days or even weeks to be finalised, there could be an increased risk of civil unrest across the country."

In what may well be a first, several of the Big Tech companies have been working together to "scenario plan" different results of the vote.

They've essentially been war-gaming election night.

There's one scenario that worries the tech bosses: postal votes are expected to be weighted towards the Democratic candidate, while voting at the ballot box is expected to favour the incumbent Republican.

This is because Mr Trump has told his supporters to vote in person. He says the postal voting process is rigged (there is no evidence of this).

The Democrats, by contrast, have no such problem with encouraging postal voting.

As a result, these two ways of voting have become politically skewed.

This could create what is being coined as a "red mirage" on the night of the poll and a "blue shift" in the days after.

In this scenario, Mr Trump would "win" on the day because ballot box votes will have been counted.

But then, after the postal votes slowly rack up, Mr Biden would claw away at Mr Trump's lead.

Disputed result

What would Mr Trump do? Well almost everything he's said and tweeted thus far suggests he'd declare victory - or at the very least question the result.

"[We] must know election results on the night of the election, not days, months, or even years later!" he tweeted in July.

His constant talk of postal voting fraud also points to him questioning the final tally.
And last week he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

In fact, Mr Trump has already done something similar. During the Florida mid-term elections of 2018, as recounts were beginning to haul in a Republican majority, he tweeted the following:

“The Florida Election should be called in favor of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in that large numbers of new ballots showed up out of nowhere, and many ballots are missing or forged. An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night!”

So the evidence points one way. Mr Trump doesn't want to hang around for all those postal votes to be counted.

This is where the Big Tech bosses come in.

If Mr Trump is going to declare victory, it's likely he'll do it via Twitter and Facebook.

And these platforms have said - unequivocally - that they will not allow him to do that.

Twitter has said it will "label or remove misleading information intended to undermine public confidence in an election… eg claiming victory before election results have been certified".

Facebook has said it will reject ads from US political campaigns prematurely claiming victory before results have been declared - and remove disinformation about the vote.

On Friday, news site Axios reported that Google would block election ads after election day as a response to this same concern.

So we now have this possibility: Mr Trump claims victory, but is blocked from spreading the word on social media.

Dangerous moment

This could create perhaps the most dangerous moment that any of these social media companies have faced.

They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.

As passions intensify, the presidential candidates may vow revenge for decisions taken about what to leave up or take down that they disagree with.

What could Mr Trump do to punish them? Well in the future he could seek to repeal Section 230 - which protects social media companies from being responsible for the content people publish.

He's already indicated - through executive orders - that he's willing to do this.

Biden too could refuse to concede defeat - or go too far in claiming that Republicans are trying to "steal" the election.

And if Mr Biden wins but feels social media fanned the flames of division? Well there are many Democrats who are concerned with the power that these companies have. Some believe they should even be split up.

Of course, this might not happen. Mr Trump could win by a landslide and Mr Biden accept defeat immediately. Or Mr Biden could win the popular vote on the night, and Mr Trump could go graciously.

But all of the evidence so far suggests that's not going to happen.

And that could mean serious problems for not just the United States, but the future of social media itself.
Arelor
2020-09-30 13:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To: Ed Stasiak
Re: Re: Social media Election Day Nightmares
By: Ed Stasiak to rec.arts.tv on Tue Sep 29 2020 06:28 pm
Post by Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
ES> Too important a story to leave as just a link.

I love how social media giants try to present themselves as heroes who will save the day after supporting and making a lot of money from the polarization among the population.

Screw those hypocrites.
--- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Havens BBS - Queens, Ny - telnet://havens.synchronetbbs.org
The Horny Goat
2020-10-14 06:47:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:22:55 -0400, "Arelor"
Post by Arelor
To: Ed Stasiak
Re: Re: Social media Election Day Nightmares
By: Ed Stasiak to rec.arts.tv on Tue Sep 29 2020 06:28 pm
Post by Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
ES> Too important a story to leave as just a link.
I love how social media giants try to present themselves as heroes who will save the day after supporting and making a lot of money from the polarization among the population.
In that order of priority no doubt.....(despite the sarcasm I thought
it was a well written article)
The Horny Goat
2020-10-14 06:44:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 18:28:39 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Pete
Pete
Social Media Tech firms are having nightmares about how Election Day
=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54311383
Too important a story to leave as just a link.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54311383
Sep.29, 2020
US 2020 election: Social media's nightmare scenario
There's an election scenario that is giving social media company bosses nig=
htmares.
The period between the polls closing and the declared result usually takes =
a few hours.
But this time it's likely to take days - perhaps even weeks. Millions of po=
stal votes will take time to process.
Social media companies believe this period - of claim and counterclaim - co=
uld push the US over the edge.
If both Donald Trump and Joe Biden declare themselves the winner, there are=
fears of violence between the already polarised communities of the US.
And all of this could be played out on social media.
Three weeks ago, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg said he was "worried".
On Facebook he wrote: "With our nation so divided and election results pote=
ntially taking days or even weeks to be finalised, there could be an increa=
sed risk of civil unrest across the country."
In what may well be a first, several of the Big Tech companies have been wo=
rking together to "scenario plan" different results of the vote.
They've essentially been war-gaming election night.
Why is this so shocking? In 1968 Newsweek magazine published on their
editorial page the 4 covers they had ready which were basically Nixon
victory, Humphrey victory, Wallace victory and deadlock victory and
the editorial was written on the production process for the election
issue BEFORE the result was known.

The edtorial finished saying something to the effect that 'this is
being written before the result is known but the magazine goes to
press after the result is known so you'll see one of these 4 on the
cover of this week's issue'

My point is 'why would you insist none of what you're talking about
has been done before?"
Ed Stasiak
2020-10-14 09:22:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
FPP
2020-10-14 10:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-14 14:27:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.

Ian J. Ball
2020-10-15 02:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the
claimed election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
http://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE
Trotsky is quoting the Constitution, a document he despises, at us?!
That's an utter joke!
--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!
FPP
2020-10-15 06:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the
claimed election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
http://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE
Trotsky is quoting the Constitution, a document he despises, at us?!
That's an utter joke!
Don't know what the word 'quote' means, do you? Why am I NOT surprised?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
trotsky
2020-10-15 17:02:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the
claimed election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
http://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE
Trotsky is quoting the Constitution, a document he despises, at us?!
That's an utter joke!
Don't know what the word 'quote' means, do you?  Why am I NOT surprised?
I had no idea Ian was such an expert on me. I thought he was just a
consultant at Thanny's used buttplug shoppe.
FPP
2020-10-15 20:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
The Horny Goat
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
They will have to censor potentially thousands of politically charged posts.
Why is this so shocking?
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the
claimed election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
http://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE
Trotsky is quoting the Constitution, a document he despises, at us?!
That's an utter joke!
Don't know what the word 'quote' means, do you?  Why am I NOT surprised?
I had no idea Ian was such an expert on me.  I thought he was just a
consultant at Thanny's used buttplug shoppe.
Can I quote you? Oh, sorry, I mean ME.
I forgot we're the same person again... but then, that's YOUR fault as
much as it is MINE, isn't it?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
Ed Stasiak
2020-10-14 21:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.

Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Loading Image...

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
BTR1701
2020-10-14 22:32:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Facebook is censoring the New York Post story about Giuliani supposedly
having copies of emails and photos of Hunter Biden that prove the whole Joe
Biden/Burisma thing.

Facebook has decided to suppress sharing of the Post article until their
own fact-checkers can independently validate it.

So now you're not allowed to talk about actual breaking news until Facebook
conducts its own investigation and its certainly-not-biased factcheckers
give their blessing.

How much you wanna bet that only applies to breaking news that could hurt
Democrats? Something tells me that if the Times came out with a story that
proved Trump collusion with Russia, we'd be able to share it on Facebook
immediately.
FPP
2020-10-14 23:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Facebook is censoring the New York Post story about Giuliani supposedly
having copies of emails and photos of Hunter Biden that prove the whole Joe
Biden/Burisma thing.
Facebook has decided to suppress sharing of the Post article until their
own fact-checkers can independently validate it.
So now you're not allowed to talk about actual breaking news until Facebook
conducts its own investigation and its certainly-not-biased factcheckers
give their blessing.
How much you wanna bet that only applies to breaking news that could hurt
Democrats? Something tells me that if the Times came out with a story that
proved Trump collusion with Russia, we'd be able to share it on Facebook
immediately.
Wow! Oh, MY God! Facebook won't post crackpot theories?
What a world... what a world...
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
trotsky
2020-10-15 16:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Facebook is censoring the New York Post story
Sorry, actual reporting says it's both FB and Twitter, so please stop
spewing your motherfucking bullshit.

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-hunter-biden-new-york-post-story-fact-checkers-2020-10
FPP
2020-10-14 23:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
https://i.postimg.cc/D0znYHx6/Faceberg-1591754685105.jpg
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
They seem to be making quite a meal out of it, though...
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
alvey
2020-10-15 01:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
Post by Ed Stasiak
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
https://i.postimg.cc/D0znYHx6/Faceberg-1591754685105.jpg
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you
can't legislate to prevent stupidity.



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
alvey
2020-10-15 20:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
It's always informative chatting with you Ed...



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
moviePig
2020-10-15 22:29:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by alvey
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
It's always informative chatting with you Ed...
(Fwiw, I think a comma belongs between 'so' and 'like'...)
alvey
2020-10-15 22:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by alvey
Post by alvey
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
It's always informative chatting with you Ed...
(Fwiw, I think a comma belongs between 'so' and 'like'...)
Ahhhh.

It's like that famous example by one of the Tsarinas.



alvey
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ed Stasiak
2020-10-15 22:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?

Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
FPP
2020-10-16 06:44:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution. The fact is,
yes - the internet should be treated like a public utility - but not
private companies.

Regulated, maybe... but they're still a private company, and they have
certain rights.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-16 15:08:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-10-16 15:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
. . .
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
I recall hearing of a case of a New Jersey shopping center owner years
ago, that his shopping center had become a public forum for First
Amendment purposes.

Did the case you are thinking of reach circuit court level or just trial
court?

Now that shopping centers are also dying, how do I picket? Can I force
Amazon to deliver a video of me picketing with each fulfilled order?
FPP
2020-10-16 22:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-17 01:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.

I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
FPP
2020-10-17 02:30:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-17 15:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?

So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
FPP
2020-10-17 21:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-18 00:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
FPP
2020-10-18 01:33:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.

But we KNOW those prohibitions against CONGRESS absolutely DO NOT apply
to the private sector...

You get that, right, loyer?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-18 01:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
FPP
2020-10-18 02:12:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-18 05:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
FPP
2020-10-18 11:27:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts - and they
are, by the practice of Judicial Review.

But in this case, the Constitution is absolutely clear that the
constraints it places on the GOVERNMENT absolutely do NOT apply to
private entities.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-18 13:57:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts.
You also said they weren't absolute.
FPP
2020-10-18 14:06:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts.
You also said they weren't absolute.
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? (again).

Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment - only
Congress is. READ IT!
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-19 01:50:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites;
their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn¹t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone
companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can¹t censor users, you can talk/text
anything you want
and they can¹t stop you because they are defined as utilities
and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations
should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can¹t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal
morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I¹d guess that¹s
more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to
censor their users?
Either they¹re a utility and thus users have the right to
freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they¹re a publisher and thus
legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked
picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was
sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete
censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control
threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution
are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute
right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things
are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts.
You also said they weren't absolute.
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? (again).
Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment
Except I've already cited the case of a Minnesota mall (private company)
that was held to the requirements of the 1st Amendment.

So... not absolute after all.
FPP
2020-10-19 03:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites;
their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn¹t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone
companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can¹t censor users, you can talk/text
anything you want
and they can¹t stop you because they are defined as utilities
and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations
should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can¹t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal
morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I¹d guess that¹s
more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to
censor their users?
Either they¹re a utility and thus users have the right to
freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they¹re a publisher and thus
legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked
picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was
sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete
censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control
threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution
are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute
right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things
are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts.
You also said they weren't absolute.
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? (again).
Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment
Except I've already cited the case of a Minnesota mall (private company)
that was held to the requirements of the 1st Amendment.
So... not absolute after all.
And , once again, you misrepresent the facts.

"Aggergaard previously told MPR News that a few states, including
California, Massachusetts and Colorado, have decided that shopping malls
are essentially Main Street, "and you can't privatize Main Street, at
least when you're talking about core political speech."

They're NOT deemed a private company. Facebook is. Facebook isn't even
a brick and mortar entity where people can gather. It's isn't a Main
Street because it's virtual place, that isn't even a place - it's a
bunch of servers and software.

So how does something that's NOT deemed a private company suddenly
become one - just to suit your example?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
BTR1701
2020-10-20 00:42:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media
sites;
their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn1t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone
companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can1t censor users, you can talk/text
anything you want
and they can1t stop you because they are defined as
utilities
and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations
should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can1t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal
morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I1d guess that1s
more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to
censor their users?
Either they1re a utility and thus users have the right to
freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they1re a publisher and thus
legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of
business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked
picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was
sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise
complete
censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control
threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the
Constitution
are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an
'absolute
right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things
are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by
the
1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the
past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no
absolutely NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you
said no rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts.
You also said they weren't absolute.
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid?
(again).
Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment
Except I've already cited the case of a Minnesota mall (private company)
that was held to the requirements of the 1st Amendment.
So... not absolute after all.
"Aggergaard previously told MPR News that a few states, including
California, Massachusetts and Colorado, have decided that shopping malls
are essentially Main Street, "and you can't privatize Main Street, at
least when you're talking about core political speech."
They're NOT deemed a private company.
It's not a matter of 'deeming'. The real estate and development
companies that own malls are factually private companies.
FPP
2020-10-20 03:19:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media
sites;
their size and
scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn1t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone
companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can1t censor users, you can talk/text
anything you want
and they can1t stop you because they are defined as
utilities
and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations
should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can1t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal
morass because you
can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I1d guess that1s
more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to
censor their users?
Either they1re a utility and thus users have the right to
freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they1re a publisher and thus
legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of
business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked
picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was
sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise
complete
censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control
threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the
Constitution
are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an
'absolute
right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things
are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by
the
1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the
past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no
absolutely NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you
said no rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Which it is.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
constitutional rights are absolute.
I said they were subject to interpretation, by the courts.
You also said they weren't absolute.
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid?
(again).
Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment
Except I've already cited the case of a Minnesota mall (private company)
that was held to the requirements of the 1st Amendment.
So... not absolute after all.
"Aggergaard previously told MPR News that a few states, including
California, Massachusetts and Colorado, have decided that shopping malls
are essentially Main Street, "and you can't privatize Main Street, at
least when you're talking about core political speech."
They're NOT deemed a private company.
It's not a matter of 'deeming'. The real estate and development
companies that own malls are factually private companies.
Well, since you HAVEN'T cited a case yet, it's kind of hard to pin you
down, counselor. I have to wonder why you were so vague.
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
I'm still waiting for specifics. Some malls are built or financed with
public money, or tax breaks.
You haven't proven ANYTHING yet.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-10-20 05:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? (again).
Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment
Except I've already cited the case of a Minnesota mall (private company)
that was held to the requirements of the 1st Amendment.
So... not absolute after all.
And , once again, you misrepresent the facts.
"Aggergaard previously told MPR News that a few states, including
California, Massachusetts and Colorado, have decided that shopping malls
are essentially Main Street, "and you can't privatize Main Street, at
least when you're talking about core political speech."
They're NOT deemed a private company. Facebook is. Facebook isn't even
a brick and mortar entity where people can gather. It's isn't a Main
Street because it's virtual place, that isn't even a place - it's a
bunch of servers and software.
So how does something that's NOT deemed a private company suddenly
become one - just to suit your example?
So perhaps the mall owner should sue the city for a tax refund based
on the proposition that if his mall is "Main Street" and public
property he cannot legally be assessed property taxes as if the mall
were private property.

This I believe is the legal doctrine of "eating your cake and having
it too"!
FPP
2020-10-20 10:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Exactly. (again) They aren't. (again) They're subject to
interpretation. (again) Are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? (again).
Private companies ABSOLUTELY aren't bound by the 1st Amendment
Except I've already cited the case of a Minnesota mall (private company)
that was held to the requirements of the 1st Amendment.
So... not absolute after all.
And , once again, you misrepresent the facts.
"Aggergaard previously told MPR News that a few states, including
California, Massachusetts and Colorado, have decided that shopping malls
are essentially Main Street, "and you can't privatize Main Street, at
least when you're talking about core political speech."
They're NOT deemed a private company. Facebook is. Facebook isn't even
a brick and mortar entity where people can gather. It's isn't a Main
Street because it's virtual place, that isn't even a place - it's a
bunch of servers and software.
So how does something that's NOT deemed a private company suddenly
become one - just to suit your example?
So perhaps the mall owner should sue the city for a tax refund based
on the proposition that if his mall is "Main Street" and public
property he cannot legally be assessed property taxes as if the mall
were private property.
This I believe is the legal doctrine of "eating your cake and having
it too"!
Somebody finally got it right!
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-10-18 02:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an 'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind. No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Care to show us your legal expertise and show us how it isn't?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-10-18 11:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by alvey
alvey
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
You already know my stance on corporate social media
sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone
companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Eh? I don't know the U.S. set-up Ed, so how do your phone
companies "censor
users"?
The phone companies can’t censor users, you can talk/text
anything you want
and they can’t stop you because they are defined as
utilities and Facebook
and other large Wall Street social media mega-corporations
should be also.
Post by alvey
Post by Arelor
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately the whole landscape is doomed to be legal
morass because you can't
legislate to prevent stupidity.
Facebook has OVER 2 BILLION daily users, I’d guess that’s
more than any
phone company on the planet, so why are they allowed to
censor their users?
Either they’re a utility and thus users have the right to
freedom of speech
(my preferred definition) or they’re a publisher and thus
legally accountable
for what they publish (and so end up going out of business).
Because it's their absolute right, under the Constitution.
It's not absolute. In a case where a Minnesota mall kicked picketers off
its (private) property, the Court found that the mall was sufficiently
analogous to a public square that it couldn't exercise
complete censorship
over demonstrators and couldn't completely prohibit them.
In this case it is.
I'll also note that you have repeatedly claimed in gun control threads over
the years that none of the guaranteed rights in the Constitution are
absolute. Now suddenly here you are claiming this is an
'absolute right'.
I await your spin as to how both of those contradictory things are true and
you weren't wrong in either instance.
They're NOT the government, moron. They're not constrained by the 1st
Amendment.
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
There sure is when it comes to private companies that have no absolutely
NO obligation under the Constitution.
Right. So we're agreed that you were lying in the past when you said no
rights are absolute.
Nothing of the kind.  No rights in the Constitution are absolute -
they're open to interpretation.
FPP: "Because it's their absolute right, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION."
Care to show us your legal expertise and show us how it isn't?
Let's all note you haven't answered... but went on to blather the same
question I've answered 4 times now.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-10-18 05:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:16:39 -0500, BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
Why assume lying when simple confusion would explain the behaviour?
BTR1701
2020-10-18 07:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:16:39 -0500, BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
Why assume lying when simple confusion would explain the behaviour?
Because that's the FPP Standard.
FPP
2020-10-18 11:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:16:39 -0500, BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
Why assume lying when simple confusion would explain the behaviour?
Because that's the FPP Standard.
Well, fuckwit, here's another principle you're ignorant of, I see.
It isn't *MY* 'standard', fuckwit - or haven't you ever heard of
'Hanlon's Razor'?
Post by BTR1701
Hanlon's razor is a principle or rule of thumb that states, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Known in several other forms, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
Gosh, but I LOVE it when your ignorance makes you a laughingstock!
How many boxtops DID you have to send in to get YOUR degree?
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
FPP
2020-10-18 11:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:16:39 -0500, BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
So then according to you (now) there *are* absolute rights in the
Constitution, despite you saying there aren't many times in the past?
So I guess that means you were lying in the past.
Why assume lying when simple confusion would explain the behaviour?
That's 'Hanlon's Razor', you know...
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-10-16 15:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
https://i.postimg.cc/D0znYHx6/Faceberg-1591754685105.jpg
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
While I agree with you the social media giants mostly HAVE been having
their cake and eating it too for most of the last decade.

While I support your view what method do you advocate for getting from
here to there?
FPP
2020-10-16 22:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by Arelor
Ed Stasiak
Because while the article talks about censoring Trump or Biden from making
comments after a contested election, the implication is that corporate social
media will be censoring _anybody_ who doesn't toe the line on the claimed
election results.
As is their absolute right, under our Constitution.
You already know my stance on corporate social media sites; their size and scope
makes them defacto utilities and so like the phone companies, they shouldn’t be
allowed to censor users.
Either that, or they be defined as publishers and thus lose their protections under
Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996.
https://i.postimg.cc/D0znYHx6/Faceberg-1591754685105.jpg
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
While I agree with you the social media giants mostly HAVE been having
their cake and eating it too for most of the last decade.
While I support your view what method do you advocate for getting from
here to there?
And for the umpteenth time - you certainly CAN **have** your cake, and
eat it, too. In fact, you MUST **have** your cake before you can eat it
at all.

What you CAN'T do is "Eat your cake, and have it too." It's a pretty
simple thing people always get ass backwards.
--
There's nothing more American than demanding to carry an AR-15 to
"protect yourself" but refusing to wear a mask to protect everyone else.

If you hired a guy to "Make My House Great Again", and he hired his
incompetent children, stole your money, gave it away to your richest
neighbors, let everyone get sick, killed your grandma, backed over your
mailbox, burned down your house and blamed it on your black friends next
door... would YOU hire him AGAIN?

REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.
Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
b***@gmail.com
2020-10-15 05:51:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Facebook is going blah blah blah, forgetting
that we had mass riots in the 1960s and 1990s
before everybody had internet access.

Damn, why did they have to ramble on with
all of this shit, when they could've said
"We want to keep our hands clean of what
trouble may happen on election night."?

A simple, straightforward, and refreshingly
honest answer.
b***@gmail.com
2020-10-15 05:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"We want to keep our hands clean of any
trouble that may happen on election night."

Sounds better
Loading...