Professor suggests it should be a federal hate crime to criticize Fauci and other government-funded scientists | The College Fix
Targeted by far-right extremism.'
Free Speech Until it's Inconvenient
- Thread starter 86Hawkeye
- Start date
What about free speech until you are incontinent?
I saw a story today stating Facebook would not allow an announcement for a charity event raising money for fallen police officers.
So much for the 1st Amendment.
So much for the 1st Amendment.
I didn't realize that the government owned and operated Facebook. When did that happen?
BTW - if the story you read is accurate, and I'd love to see the actual story, then its ridiculous and Facebook deserves intense criticism. But its not a 1st Amendment issue.
So many people, especially among trumpbaggers, do not understand what the 1st amendment says.
You're welcome to create your own social media site and post about whatever (legal) stuff you want there. At some point maybe people both sides will start to understand what is covered by the First Amendment and what is not.
The feds are “helping” Facebook decide what content is permissible and what is not. They don’t have to own it to have influence over what’s on it.
Because it's hard to post links, right @abby97?
It's not.
Facebook allowed the story to be posted to a Facebook account. The advertiser wanted to also purchase ads.
Those were rejected for a number of reasons, including failure to verify account holder identity and include "Paid for by" language required of such ads.
But rather than that, the advertiser complained to Fox, who ran with a deceptive story, which stirred up the usual suspects complaining about the First Amendment, when the case has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.
What if a private ISP refused to serve a business because they didn’t like their politics?
it doesn’t take too long until the slope is slippery.
Here is another.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ear-post-claiming-sensitive-social-issue.html
Maybe you don't understand the first amendment. It is a principle of a free American society where everyone has a right to voice his/her own opinions. I'm not suggesting that Facebook or others are breaking the law, but if you believe in American ideals, than censoring posts simply because you disagree with them , is contrary to the first amendment. Our society is built on individual freedom and expression, not oppression.
It's also legal to call your mother a tramp but it isn't illegal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ear-post-claiming-sensitive-social-issue.html
Maybe you don't understand the first amendment. It is a principle of a free American society where everyone has a right to voice his/her own opinions. I'm not suggesting that Facebook or others are breaking the law, but if you believe in American ideals, than censoring posts simply because you disagree with them , is contrary to the first amendment. Our society is built on individual freedom and expression, not oppression.
It's also legal to call your mother a tramp but it isn't illegal.
Yep, looks like they flagged it and took it down. You're correct Abby. That's ridiculous for them to find an issue with a fundraiser for fallen officers. Inexcusable and should make anyone question who read the Ad and decided that this was not alright to post. I think we all know, but some are unwilling to acknowledge.
Nice try
Strong response as always. Here's a FOX story on it.
Distillery says Facebook repeatedly rejected ad promoting event, sale dedicated to first responders
Despite multiple attempts to pay for Facebook ads promoting a ‘Back the Blue’ event launching a bottle series dedicated to first responders, Loaded Cannon Distillery says they keep getting denied, so they will promote the event the old-fashioned way.
Look at the pretty video at the top of the linked article. Read what it says?
Ad Can't Run. Edit Ad or Confirm Identity. We require people to confirm their identity and create a disclaimer to run ads about social issues, elections or politics.
I accept your apology in advance.
I would also include the second amendment to that list.
I saw an online story where Facebook is banning images of guns. So much for the second amendment.
They don't own it, but they do send it 'suggestions' for content they would like to see removed.
Oh, and they also happen to oversee and hold final approval on multi-billion dollar investments that Facebook likes to make.
But you're right, they don't own or operate it.
It’s incredible how many times the First Amendment has to be explained to people mad at social media companies. Maybe not so incredible when it’s Abby that needs the explanation.
Do you think First Amendment issues can arise when the White House requests a social media company remove a post?
If you owned a social media company and needed the White House to approve your latest multi-billion dollar acquisition, and found yourself in receipt of a request from that same White House to remove content that they didn't like, do you think there could be any undue influence there?
Would you be more, or less inclined to meet their request?
I think it's plainly obvious you would.
It depends for me on how the "request" is made. Is it a threat of retaliation? Is it a hopeful plea? No idea. I can request my wife let me PIITB all day long, doesn't get me anywhere.
It's scary to see regardless and where the "slippery slope" actually lies here.
If that private ISP is indeed private, then no big deal. Seems like a terrible market strategy and quick way to lose 1/3-1/2 of your customers to a competitor, but their call. If the state/municipality doesn't allow for competition, there is where an issue arises.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So unless Facebook is congress... you’re a dipshit.
Then that business should go into the cake making business.
If there were billions of dollars on the line, would the missus be more amenable to your dirty requests?
I could probably get away with it for a $10 Starbucks gift card but I'm too lazy.
Not really. We all know if the roles were reversed what your tune would be on it.
But most of us know you're a political hack anyway so NBD.
What do you consider a stretch?
Do you think the White House wouldn't send a social media company a list of posts they would like to see censored?
Some argue Facebook Twitter have no real competition so they should be considered utilities
How do you reverse roles on something like this? Social media companies aren't the government. The notion that there is some clandestine effort by the government to exercise free speech control through social media is just another absurd conspiracy theory that dupes the gullible.
Which is a different argument. They might need to be split up, but they aren't government entities.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Hawkeyes Host Fast-Rising 2025 Three-Star DB, Graceson Littleton
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-