Desantis blocked

[America 1st]

 

[Edgehollow]

So...they can violate MY free speech, but theirs can't be violated? What fucking sense does that make?

 

[America 1st]

So...they can violate MY free speech, but theirs can't be violated? What fucking sense does that make?

I think the argument was that people could simply choose not to use their platforms and that folks aren't entitled to use someone else's platform to say whatever they want.

 

[TopHook]

My qualm is that it is a publicly traded company so how is it still a private company?

 

[tiderollsonu]

Good send it to the scotus and let's set a president to repeal their protections

 

[America 1st]

My qualm is that it is a publicly traded company so how is it still a private company?

All corporations, regardless of being publicly traded or not, have the same free speech protections as any other entity.

It would be like saying Goodyear couldn't refuse to put advertisements on their blimps, that don't align with their company vision, as an example.

 

[BigBucnNole]

I think the argument was that people could simply choose not to use their platforms and that folks aren't entitled to use someone else's platform to say whatever they want.

Using rigid thinking and ignoring the monopoly. That’s the problem with law in general. World isn’t one size fits all and precedent should be guidelines.

Could be a bad ruling ultimately becomes the Dems know they’ll be deplatformed eventually.

 

[America 1st]

Using rigid thinking and ignoring the monopoly. That’s the problem with law in general. World isn’t one size fits all and precedent should be guidelines.

Could be a bad ruling ultimately becomes the Dems know they’ll be deplatformed eventually.

Agreed on the monopoly but that would be a different case.

Very glad to see the number of AGs pursuing that already.

This is a win for conservative social media too. Now states can't interfere in their platforms (ex: TFSF).

 

[orng_blud]

All corporations, regardless of being publicly traded or not, have the same free speech protections as any other entity.

It would be like saying Goodyear couldn't refuse to put advertisements on their blimps, that don't align with their company vision, as an example.

How is that different from a bakery declining business that is contradictory to their vision/beliefs?

 

[America 1st]

How is that different from a bakery declining business that is contradictory to their vision/beliefs?

That wasn't a free speech case on it's face. That was proving different services to customers.

Simply put you can't say you can put whatever you want on a cake then not allow that for certain folks.

Since the tech is outright saying they will treat certain speech differently there is no discrimination based on use.

Someone would need to bring that individual case for discrimination against conservatives and the tech would argue it doesn't target certain groups of people just certain types of speech.

 

[imprimis]

How is that different from a bakery declining business that is contradictory to their vision/beliefs?

Or news networks refusing to allow political campaign advertisements they don't like?

 

[America 1st]

Or news networks refusing to allow political campaign advertisements they don't like?

As long as they are treating everyone that tries to advertise equally they're allowed to form their own rules as long as those rules don't discriminate against a protected class (the definition varies by jurisdiction).

Going back to the bakery example for a second; they have to let folks put what they want on their cakes because that was the way they treated everyone else and was their stated position on the service they were providing to their customers.

They don't have to let gays decorate the inside of their building though just because they hire an outside company to paint their walls.

The news channels used this legal position as their cover to not allow Trump to advertise during 2020 and weren't taken to court because they issued rules around "hate speech" instead of targeting him specifically.

 

[GarnetPild]

All corporations, regardless of being publicly traded or not, have the same free speech protections as any other entity.

It would be like saying Goodyear couldn't refuse to put advertisements on their blimps, that don't align with their company vision, as an example.

I look at social media as the town square of the 21st century. These companies censoring people, imo, would be like the phone company back in the 1950s disconnecting your line because they didn't like the political views you were sharing over their phone lines.

 

[America 1st]

I look at social media as the town square of the 21st century. These companies censoring people, imo, would be like the phone company back in the 1950s disconnecting your line because they didn't like the political views you were sharing over their phone lines.

I'm hopeful that soon they will be declared public utilities.

 

[NolesBravesNiners]

So...they can violate MY free speech, but theirs can't be violated? What fucking sense does that make?

Money talks and we can’t.

 

[SCTetz]

Can’t get them on free speech. Bad argument. They created a situation of unfair practices towards smaller companies (see Parlor) and so the monopoly direction should be utilized.

 

[Edgehollow]

I think the argument was that people could simply choose not to use their platforms and that folks aren't entitled to use someone else's platform to say whatever they want.

And I think if you're using your platform to silence individuals because you don't agree with them, then you should shut the fuck up when it comes back around. Choosing to be censored or not use a platform isn't really a choice, is it?

Let everyone talk (within reason, no shouting Fire in a crowded theater)...or let no one talk. There's no middle ground when it comes to free speech.

 

[Cre8ive]

This ruling is very thin abstract ice and will crack soon. DeSantis and his legal and managerial team are not to be trifled with. They will get what they are seeking. Drop back, re-word and attach. With you all the way Ron!

 

[America 1st]

 

[BurntJ]

Why doesn’t he just declare “a state of emergency” or whatever that BULLSHIT POWER the establishment always uses to ram shit through (spending wise….FEMA has to be the Richest….most retarded business/execs….because everyone bitches about how shitty they are and yet every year they are gaining billions budget wise. )

 

[hmt5000]

My qualm is that it is a publicly traded company so how is it still a private company?

Mine is that court ruled that TRUMP couldn't block someone on that platform, and if someone spreads lies on people on the right they just let it ride, or if they let people call for the murder and doxing of a kid from covington for just standing on a step... If they want to act like a publisher then they can be sued.