Federal Court Smacks Down Social Media Platform Censorship

Walt said:
Yes, I know why you want to ban freedom of the press. Freedom of the press would allow "communist party papers" to print their point of view. It would allow Democrats to print their point of view. It would allow everyone to.

Instead, you want to replace it with what the Nazis called "press freedom" which was the requirement that all the presses publish the Nazi point of view.

There is no press freedom if there is not the freedom to not publish something you do not want to. There is no freedom of speech, if there is not the freedom to not speak.
Click to expand...

HARDLY. THE PLATFORMS ARE WHO IS BLOCKING FREE SPEECH...YOU WANT ONLY THE LEFT'S LIES ALLOWED, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF "NET NEUTTRALITY"..


THE COURT DISAGREES WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.. CONTINUE TO CHOKE ON IT...
 
"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


CONTINUE CHOKING.....FASCIST.
 
Grokmaster said:
THE PLATFORMS ARE WHO IS BLOCKING FREE SPEECH...YOU WANT ONLY THE LEFT'S LIES ALLOWED, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF "NET NEUTTRALITY"..
Click to expand...

What the Founding Fathers would have said to you is get your own platform. If you do not like what a press is printing, then get your own press. They would not agree with your demands that the government take over the press.

And net neutrality has nothing to do with political views, or anything else about the data. It is about free connection between internet addresses.

To use the phone company example, net neutrality is the freedom to call any number you like. Texas censorship law is a requirement for everyone to express right wing views when called. I should have the right to say whatever I like about trump... OR JUST AS IMPORTANTLY SAY NOTHING ABOUT HIM. The government should not be allowed to force me to say things about trump.
 
Walt said:
What the Founding Fathers would have said to you is get your own platform. If you do not like what a press is printing, then get your own press. They would not agree with your demands that the government take over the press.

And net neutrality has nothing to do with political views, or anything else about the data. It is about free connection between internet addresses.

To use the phone company example, net neutrality is the freedom to call any number you like. Texas censorship law is a requirement for everyone to express right wing views when called. I should have the right to say whatever I like about trump... OR JUST AS IMPORTANTLY SAY NOTHING ABOUT HIM. The government should not be allowed to force me to say things about trump.
Click to expand...

CAN'T FUCKING READ?


"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


CONTINUE CHOKING.....FASCIST.
 
Walt said:
Before this, anyone could setup their own website to express whatever views they wanted. That is called freedom of the press. Anyone can print what they want on their own press. They do not have to print what the government tells them.

Now everyone has to print what the government tells them. That is the opposite of freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

forbidding censorship is not compelled speech.

learn what words mean, idiot.
 
HERE IT IS, IN A NUTTSHELL:


"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


CONTINUE CHOKING.....FASCISTS.
 
AssHatZombie said:
you have freedom to express it yourself.
Click to expand...

And you have freedom to setup your own social media site, much like you had the freedom to have your own press.

There has always been the problem that freedom of the press is only for people with enough money to have a press. In the past, it cost a lifetime fortune to have a press, whereas right now you can setup a blog with a thousand or so dollars (a week's fortune).
 
Walt said:
And you have freedom to setup your own social media site, much like you had the freedom to have your own press.

There has always been the problem that freedom of the press is only for people with enough money to have a press. In the past, it cost a lifetime fortune to have a press, whereas right now you can setup a blog with a thousand or so dollars (a week's fortune).
Click to expand...

corporations cannot collude with the government to censor. that's fascism.

you're like a libertarian, fine with tyranny as long as it's privatized.

libertarianism is the religion of the illuminati.
 
AssHatZombie said:
corporations cannot collude with the government to censor. that's fascism.

you're like a libertarian, fine with tyranny as long as it's privatized.

libertarianism is the religion of the illuminati.
Click to expand...

^^^
Fredo is working on his insanity defense.
 
Grokmaster said:
HERE IT IS, IN A NUTTSHELL:


"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


CONTINUE CHOKING.....FASCISTS.
Click to expand...

If you actually understood this opinion, which you obviously don’t, the ruling merely rejected the platform’s claim of its own 1st Amendment right to censor content, or at least laws that limit their ability to do so. As he said, a bizarre inversion of the 1st. A poor argument by the platform.

Rejected for that reason and rightfully so.
 
Last edited:
"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


CONTINUE CHOKING.....FASCIST.
 
Grokmaster said:
THEY ARE MORE THAN PRIVATE ENTITIES...THEY ARE LIKE THE PHONE COMPANY ,WHICH CANNOT BLOCK PEOPLES' CALLS BASED ON THEIR VIEWS...THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WANTED 1ST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR THEMSELVES, THERN SOUGHT TO BLOCK THE SPEECH OF OTHERS.


NOT ANYMORE.


SEE HOW YOU HATE LOSING THE PLATFORMS TO FURTHER YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS, AND BLOCK YOUR OPPONENTS?
Click to expand...

They're actually nothing like phone companies. Texting apps would actually be similar to a phone company because there's a direct interaction/connection with another person. The government shouldn't force Twitter, Truth Social, Facebook, etc to have a specific person as a customer, nor should the government set the operating policy for them.
 
ZenMode said:
They're actually nothing like phone companies. Texting apps would actually be similar to a phone company because there's a direct interaction/connection with another person. The government shouldn't force Twitter, Truth Social, Facebook, etc to have a specific person as a customer, nor should the government set the operating policy for them.
Click to expand...

THE JUDGE DISAGREED.


CAN'T READ?


"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


YOU LOSE.

 
Grokmaster said:
THE JUDGE DISAGREED.


CAN'T READ?


"Federal Judge Andrew S. Oldham of the Fifth Circuit said the platforms argued for “a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment” that “buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”


YOU LOSE.
Click to expand...

The 5th CIRCUS tends to have some of the worst rulings. It'll never stand if/when it gets to SCOTUS.
 
ZenMode said:
The 5th CIRCUS tends to have some of the worst rulings. It'll never stand if/when it gets to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
Nonsense the overall reversal rate for ALL the appeals courts is 71% and the 5th is 72%. The liberal 6th and 9th courts of appeal have the highest rate of being overturned by SCOTUS.



Twelve of the October 2021 term cases originated in the 9th Circuit, the most from any circuit (including state courts). The 9th Circuit had all 12 cases reversed.
Click to expand...

.
 
ExpressLane said:
Nonsense the overall reversal rate for ALL the appeals courts is 71% and the 5th is 72%. The liberal 6th and 9th courts of appeal have the highest rate of being overturned by SCOTUS.





.
Click to expand...

Ok. Percentage differences doesn't really change much. Whatever court you pick they're more likely than not to be overturned. This topic seems cherry picked ro be overturned by SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top