Posted on 04/10/2022 10:14:32 PM PDT by shadowlands1960
The Framers protected free speech with respect to the GOVERNMENT. They also insisted upon the maximum freedom of citizens. You see, the King and his minions would imprison, torture, and kill people who spoke out against the king. This, and only this was point behind the First Amendment. The Framers never intended to infringe upon the rights of individuals; and, individuals have the right to control what happens in their own homes and places of business including making rules that regulate the speech of others who enter their establishment.
In this nation we cannot allow speech to be controlled by anyone.
So you don't think you have the right to prohibit your own children from using foul language? You believe that anyone should be able to what they please on your property, including taking a dump on your lawn, as long as it is the name of free speech?
You simply do not understand the Framer's intent nor their philosophy.
Except, of course, that the stated opinions are violate the Constitution. The First Amendment controls the government, not The People. Media companies are not part of the government.
Better: If he was to take it over and compel onetime mandatory authentications for all their accounts, half their account base would evaporate...
...along with a nice chunk of change for the stock values. They’d have to either amend their practices, or double down. In either event, he should just give them more rope.
I would LOL and it would be a shot in the arm to other platforms.
Right on. It should prove to be interesting.
That is true and I am very suspicious of Freepers who constantly post that crap here under the lame excuse "so we can see what the other side is saying."
I already know what the "other side" is saying. I also know that they hate us and want to destroy us.
Thank you. Glad you agree.
So punishing people who speak out against the ruling class is wrong? Got it. Exactly what I have been saying.
The Framers never intended to infringe upon the rights of individuals; and, individuals have the right to control what happens in their own homes and places of business including making rules that regulate the speech of others who enter their establishment.
Nobody is "entering" their establishment. The public is using the normal mass communications systems which are available to them, just as they used telephone company systems in the past.
Companies are free to make any statements they want, but what *COMMUNICATIONS* companies must not be allowed to do is to censor public usage of their public communications systems.
You simply do not understand the Framer's intent nor their philosophy.
I understand quite well that they regarded censorship of speech as a grave threat to freedom. I agree with them about this, and I'm not about to let people con me with technicalities about the wording of the 1rst amendment.
The intent of the first is clear, and that intent is that public speech be not censored.
My position is this. Companies that attempt to restrict speech of Americans need to be destroyed, and I don't care if it's by law or fire, we *CANNOT* tolerate these bastards threatening our freedom.
I would rather see them all burned to the ground and their people shot or imprisoned before we tolerate them controlling public speech.
Nazis need to be wiped out. We cannot tolerate Nazis running communications in this nation.
#33 hey now! A 410 is great for them damned ground squirrels.
So, if you form a company that publishes content, you are free to regulate that content; but, the government may not regulate the content. Twitter and Facebook are well within their rights to establish their own content rules; and, those rules do not fall under the control of the First Amendment simply because those companies are not part of the government.
Those social media companies are not "Communications Companies" in the sense that AT&T and other infrastructure companies are regulated. They are private companies, sort a club. They provide specific content to their subscribers, whom they are free to select or reject.
It is entirely possible for conservatives to establish a company to handle their own subscribers under their own set of rules. But, conservatives would rather fuss with each other than actually do anything.
The point you continue to miss is that those social media companies were created by private individuals for their own specific purposes. It is their right to do so. The First Amendment does not apply to those individuals, nor does it apply to you and I just as long as it is NOT a government entity that takes issue.
Did you sign up for Trump's service?
You were repeating your assertion that the first amendment only applies to government. I reject that. It applies to anyone capable of censoring public communications.
Twitter and Facebook are well within their rights to establish their own content rules;
I disagree. If they were a private club, this would be true, but they are a public communications forum, and they cannot be tolerated in censoring public speech.
Those social media companies are not "Communications Companies" in the sense that AT&T and other infrastructure companies are regulated.
On paper. In reality they are exactly the same thing as AT&T. They are public carrier mass communications companies. All rules that apply to the telephone company must be made to apply to them too.
The point you continue to miss is that those social media companies were created by private individuals for their own specific purposes.
It's fine with me if they remain private meaning no public participation allowed. But so long as they serve millions of users, they are *NOT* private, but instead have become a national public resource.
The First Amendment does not apply to those individuals, nor does it apply to you and I just as long as it is NOT a government entity that takes issue.
Disagree. They all rely on public participation and they all require public infrastructure to operate.
I will not agree to any view that allows them to remain a threat to the Republic. They must be made to be free speech platforms, or they need to be driven out of business in any way possible.
We cannot tolerate Nazi/Socialist ideas controlling communications in the USA.
You understanding of Freedom is one sided. You don't actually "get it". The proof of this is easy to discern: Has anyone filed a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds? No, because they already know it won't work.
Back in the 1930s, Adolf Hitler would engage in radio broadcasts where he dehumanized the Jews. He incited hatred and intolerance of them, and this led to the night of broken glass. (Kristallnacht)
Telling Jews not to listen to his radio broadcasts completely misses the point. *OTHER PEOPLE* were listening to his hate filled broadcasts and he was influencing the public to believe the hatred he spread.
Not using these hate companies services is beside the point. So long as they are hate companies, we need to work to destroy them. If allowed to spread their hate, it will create massive upheaval and eventually oppression in this nation.
You understanding of Freedom is one sided. You don't actually "get it".
Stop. You are looking at the little tiny itty bitty picture. I am looking at the large picture. I've seen this movie before. Making people into "untermenschen" is evil and we should not tolerate evil.
The proof of this is easy to discern: Has anyone filed a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds? No, because they already know it won't work.
How have those abortion lawsuits been working out up till now? The fact that our corrupt disgusting incompetent legal system won't fix something is not proof that it doesn't need fixing. It's just proof that the court system is garbage.
Trump's social media is off to a poor start. Where are the conservative geeks who could get that site working smoothly? How many conservatives actually signed up for the service?
There is nothing stopping conservative people from establishing news outlets, social media sites, or schools. They just don't. That is a lot more worrisome to me than trying to force someone to play by my rules. Conservatives don't work well together. Just watch all the name calling and anger amongst conservatives on this site. We are splintered here much the same way Christianity must be splintered into so many fiefdoms. There is no tolerance even among conservatives.
This Nation was lost when conservatives did not become school teachers, university professors, and congresscritters. Then they stood by and politely watched it all crumble. The only way back to normalcy probably requires violence. I don't think that will happen no matter how bad things get. Conservatives just sit and blog.
I'm glad I'm old.
Can you name one free speech platform?
Let us end this topic on that note of agreement.
This Nation was lost when conservatives did not become school teachers, university professors, and congresscritters. Then they stood by and politely watched it all crumble. The only way back to normalcy probably requires violence. I don't think that will happen no matter how bad things get. Conservatives just sit and blog.
I have spent many hours of my life wondering where and how things went wrong, and I don't chock it up to inaction on the part of conservatives. Activist conservatives get attacked and drowned by the media lie machine which is entirely in the hands of liberals. (Anita Bryant.)
I have become a believer in Tytler's cycle and I think the cause of much of our troubles is our very own success.
Prosperity makes people stupid and crazy, and it was inevitable that the crazy would be let loose when the consequences of being stupid and/or crazy were no longer severe.
I think we are going through an inevitable phase that no one could have stopped because it is an inherent part of human nature and social interaction.
But this doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and I think you may be right that violence will be the ultimate solution to the problems of the present and the future.
It works out that way so many times in human history that we would be naive to think it won't happen that way again.
Gab? Gettr? Truth? Rumble? I dunno. We’ll see if they are actually free speech platforms.
You are very cool! I have enjoyed our discussion.
I have as well, and as you may have guessed, I am fond of using hyperbole. :)
They all moderate to some extent.
Nationalize them.
I did notice, and see it as creative. Sadly, I’m fond of sarcasm. I was raised by The Three Stooges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.