FB & Twiiter Sued
General Topic
Just how will it affect all social media I wonder ? If he wins will other sites and forums be able to ban folks, limit their written words? Sounds great doesn't it? Could be opening up Pandora's box.
Good, he has the power and money to go after these liberals that sensor whatever the liberal Democrats and media "request". I hope he smashes Pandora's Box into tiny pieces. Time will tell.
Anytime someone puts something on Facebook that they don't agree with they "fact check" it, especially if it's a comment from a liberal.
Does anyone know if this has a real shot at changing anything? Or will it go before a liberal judge and be thrown out.
Something has to be done and I hope this is the start. He isn't the only one being censored and a long list of other heavyweights need to be on the list..... Candace, Levin, Giulliani heck anybody who is a conservative and holds any higher up position can add their names to the list. Sue them for all they are worth and hopefully we can get them out of our lives once and for all!!
So if they win what does that mean for HedgeHog? ;)
selective censorship is chilling-the news media is open about it now and 1/2 of America could care less
It's not 'censorship' on PRIVATE networks, it's 'moderation'. Same as we have here. Trump et al's claim that BIG private networks are no longer 'private' will probably fail.
No, but they can lose 230 legal protections as a Platform (public) when they become Publishers. This is pretty clearly rules not equally applied to the public with no personal bias. They become editors rather than moderators. Thus they have become Publishers.
Publishers can be bias and editorialize. but also can be sued for slander, lies or other intentional BS they publish. The do actually become private and lose such legal protections rather than public platform (230 protection).
They cannot have it both ways.
Tom,
We can't have it both ways but the left always seem to pull it off.
Trump can show damage by limiting individual speech.That paves the way for no lawsuit protection.Odds are against it yes but losing protection will make them pay up and exposed their bias to the Public.The same way the MSM bias has been exposed in the court of Public opinion.
"It's not 'censorship' on PRIVATE networks"
Not really. Newspapers are privately owned but must still honor your Constitutional Right to free speech. They can moderate content, but not context...
Well regardless, I must be a threat on FB. I have articles & shared posts of othersthat are "fact checked" & not shown plus I have been in FB jail for 3 dsys, 7 days & threatened with 30 day ban. I did get a 48 hour slap/ban for a "shared" comment & filed a grievance. They lifted it & did not give me the 48 hour jail time. It's rediculas.. I'm pretty vocal on some so called politicians & those are the ones that get me in trouble. Like the one I call the face of EVIL
It's got more of a shot than his election fraud claims that he brought to court did which were laughable at best. That being said, it will still be thrown out and has no chance in hell. They are PRIVATE companies, they have the FREEDOM to ban and censor whomever they like for almost any reason. Your first amendment right of "free speech"(which does not give you the right to say anything you want whenever you want... without consequences) does not extend to/supersede a private businesses rules and policies.
It's the same reason you can't go protesting inside a Mcdonalds. It's private property open to the public, and it's a crime if you. You can protest outside of it off proptery and scream all you want, but you have to follow their rules when on property. Same as if someone came to protest on your property... they can't, but they can in the public street. You can't say whatever you want at work, well I mean you can, but they can also legally fire you for it. This concept is not that hard.
The entire reason this lawsuit has finally come out is because Parler is a joke, hypocritically has rules just like facebook does, and they also ban and censor accounts. So even if trump is successful that means Parler could now be sued into oblivion. Another reason is trumps own social media platform is going to cost millions/not happen and would be about as successful as his casino, steaks, and school were.
Another hot take by soccer...
Yep. He’s nothing more then a pants wetting political puppet. Like several others here.
It seems to me that all those Mom & Pop bakeries that the sodomy lobby LBQTGLMNOP organizations targeted and bankrupted, were P-R-I-V-A-T-E companies, too! What happened to their F-R-E-E-D-O-M to simply “reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?
"Same as if someone came to protest on your property... they can't, but they can in the public street."
Really? That didn't seem to be true in the case of the McCloskys, after idiots tore down their fence and threatened their lives. His gun was seized for protecting himself.
Who is soccermom23...and why do we have so many biden stooges hanging out here all of the sudden?
"It seems to me that all those Mom & Pop bakeries that the sodomy lobby LBQTGLMNOP organizations targeted and bankrupted, were P-R-I-V-A-T-E companies, too! What happened to their F-R-E-E-D-O-M to simply “reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”?"
Just as a point of clarification: It is generally illegal to discriminate against or withhold services from someone due to their sexual preference, race, religion, etc. Bowsite could be successfully sued if they objectively refused to allow a member here based only on his sexuality. However, Bowsite could easily and legally censor that same member for his actual behavior (words, writings, expressed beliefs) if Bowsite deemed them harmful or counter to the rules or purpose of the website. It's a bit of a fine line, and of course people don't like having their voice taken away.
Carry on!
Great post, Kevin.
But about that line…. It’s NOT that fine, really…
Who you ARE is protected.
What you DO in a privately owned space is subject to private regulations. Pat’s rules here, my rules at my house, your rules at yours.
The hole in the lawsuit is that Trump is claiming that these platforms are functioning under the direction of the Gubmint…. except that they started doing it while he was still in office.
And the SCOTUS has ruled that the right to free speech does not protect speech which can foreseeably result in harm to others, nor does it protect all manner of lies. We have lots of laws which regulate speech - truth in advertising comes to mind. And laws covering fraudulent speech, incitement to riot…
The critical piece is equal enforcement. And it’s awfully difficult, as a private citizen, to know who is lying to you about what. JMO, of you never question those who agree with you, you’re drinking somebody’s kool-aid. And if you can’t find any common ground at all with those who disagree with you on some of these important subjects…
The one thing that I know to be absolutely True is that it is often incredibly difficult to know the Truth.
What’s funny to me is when Trump was in office, non deplorables were quick to say Social media influenced the election. How awful it was. How it needed to be regulated. Now, we are seeing it’s totally acceptable because it’s a private group.
You can’t make this stuff up.
I seem to recall when either the media or these tech companies become political advocacy groups providing "free" support to a political side....they will (should?) fall into an unprotected category.
