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.'
www.thecollegefix.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't realize that the government owned and operated Facebook. When did that happen?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 many people, especially among trumpbaggers, do not understand what the 1st amendment says.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Check Officer Down Memorial Ride on Facebook.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.
I can't believe that's true.
What if a private ISP refused to serve a business because they didn’t like their politics?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.
Nice tryIt'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.
FIFYHere is another.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ear-post-claiming-sensitive-social-issue.html
Maybe I 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
I would also include the second amendment to that list.So many people, especially among trumpbaggers, do not understand what the 1st amendment says.
I would also include the second amendment to that list.
They don't own it, but they do send it 'suggestions' for content they would like to see removed.I didn't realize that the government owned and operated Facebook. When did that happen?
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.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.
Go on....I would also include the second amendment to that list.
Do you think First Amendment issues can arise when the White House requests a social media company remove a post?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.
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.Do you think First Amendment issues can arise when the White House requests a social media company remove a post?
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.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.
Then that business should go into the cake making business.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.
If there were billions of dollars on the line, would the missus be more amenable to your dirty requests?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.
Don’t forget HIPAA!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.
This is quite a stretch even for you. More tin foil! LolDo 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.
I could probably get away with it for a $10 Starbucks gift card but I'm too lazy.If there were billions of dollars on the line, would the missus be more amenable to your dirty requests?
Not really. We all know if the roles were reversed what your tune would be on it.This is quite a stretch even for you. More tin foil! Lol
What do you consider a stretch?This is quite a stretch even for you. More tin foil! Lol
We know the last president would.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 utilitiesIf 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.
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.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.
Which is a different argument. They might need to be split up, but they aren't government entities.Some argue Facebook Twitter have no real competition so they should be considered utilities