 |
Re: You must be forced to post my crap or you're violating my First Amendment??? Yeah, right....
Author: BOB2
Date: 05-03-2021 - 21:12
Dr Zarkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Once upon a time we had a First Amendment.
>
> Hey, Trolio, we still have the First Amendment:
> from The Atlantic, November 2, 2012:
>
> "In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in
> Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck
> and any authority the case still carried. There,
> the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even
> speech advocating violence by members of the Ku
> Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment,
> unless the speech 'is directed to inciting or
> producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
> incite or produce such action' (emphasis mine)."
>
> The first amendment doesn't apply to private
> companies, which are quite free to censor things
> on their platforms, Bitchute included. After
> Bitchute gets sued a few times for slander etc.
> its tune will change.
I really love how these folks all suddenly want the "evil" "gubmint", which they claim to hate, to force these private social media companies to carry and/or post their comments, regardless of content, as some kind of supposed "right" they have under the First Amendment.... Imagine requiring a privately owned newspaper, or a privately owned radio, or televison station to publish someone elses specific propaganda, regardless of content.... Do they believe that Limbaugh's show should have been forced by the "gubmint" to present the views of others on "his" show?
That's not protecting First Amendment speech, that's what autocratic regimes, like Putin's, and/or Nazi's and Communist's usually try to force private newspapers to do... What I really love about this Communistic theory of the "Fiest Amendment" is the level of the hypocrisy of fools who bleat this kind of nonsense....
If folks want to have a "First Amemdnent" "right" to bleat their particular brand of horse crap on the internet, those folks should start their own social media company or site, instead of using the "jack booted thugs" of the "evil" "gubmint" to force these private companies to spew their particular brand of crap....
Now, as to trains, since David allows pretty wide latitude, and only pulls the really rank and/or threatening garbage, is there something relevant that these folks need to say, that they aren't able to, hopefully even about trains....?
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Once upon a time we had a First Amendment.
>
> Hey, Trolio, we still have the First Amendment:
> from The Atlantic, November 2, 2012:
>
> "In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in
> Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck
> and any authority the case still carried. There,
> the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even
> speech advocating violence by members of the Ku
> Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment,
> unless the speech 'is directed to inciting or
> producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
> incite or produce such action' (emphasis mine)."
>
> The first amendment doesn't apply to private
> companies, which are quite free to censor things
> on their platforms, Bitchute included. After
> Bitchute gets sued a few times for slander etc.
> its tune will change.
I really love how these folks all suddenly want the "evil" "gubmint", which they claim to hate, to force these private social media companies to carry and/or post their comments, regardless of content, as some kind of supposed "right" they have under the First Amendment.... Imagine requiring a privately owned newspaper, or a privately owned radio, or televison station to publish someone elses specific propaganda, regardless of content.... Do they believe that Limbaugh's show should have been forced by the "gubmint" to present the views of others on "his" show?
That's not protecting First Amendment speech, that's what autocratic regimes, like Putin's, and/or Nazi's and Communist's usually try to force private newspapers to do... What I really love about this Communistic theory of the "Fiest Amendment" is the level of the hypocrisy of fools who bleat this kind of nonsense....
If folks want to have a "First Amemdnent" "right" to bleat their particular brand of horse crap on the internet, those folks should start their own social media company or site, instead of using the "jack booted thugs" of the "evil" "gubmint" to force these private companies to spew their particular brand of crap....
Now, as to trains, since David allows pretty wide latitude, and only pulls the really rank and/or threatening garbage, is there something relevant that these folks need to say, that they aren't able to, hopefully even about trains....?
