Posted on 08/09/2018 10:14:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Interesting . . . very interesting !
Have they censored David Icke?
Agree 100%. And because they are de facto monopolies, they should be regulated by the US government, prolly by the FCC or maybe the commerce dept.
Right now this is like the wild west where any thing went. It is time for some polite modification to support modern society.
JomRob could offer any percent to invitation-only investors in a ***private equity*** arrangement. BUT if JimRob’s business is publicly traded, he must allow Alex Jones to set up and operate a website or in the case of FR, a separate chapter.
An analogy would be a public restaurant that rents out private rooms to parties. As long as the private parties abstain from disrupting, interfering with other private rooms such as walking in and telling other private parties to leave, they are allowed to carry on any activity that is legal. Other patrons and customers are unaffected as long as they stay out of the private rooms.
Each person that enters Alex Jones website or YouTube channel or similar is doing so on their own volition. No one is forcing them to listen to Alex Jones or to buy his products.
If a customer has an inclination to access the Alex Jones party in the Infowars private room, the public restaurant can do nothing to impede that.
However, if the public restaurant is or goes private, as in a private club, then the club can set any policy for its members, as long as it’s legal.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter, and any other publicly traded corporation must allow law-abiding customers, patrons, members EQUAL ACCESS to what the these publicly traded corporations are offering unless there are premium offerings for which customers must pay a premium. But even in the context of premium offerings, a publicly traded corporation is not allowed to deny access to premium services and products to any law-abiding customer that has the means to purchase them.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter are NOT privately owned businesses, they are owned by the public. For example, Zuckerberg as Founder and CEO of Facebook does not own private shares of Facebook. He owns public shares, common or preferred, in Facebook. Derivatives are not ownership instruments, shares are. Zuckerberg owns public shares and as CEO his shareholdings must be made public.
As long as an activity of a patron or customer is legal, these publicly owned corporations cannot alter, abridge, or suppress rights. These publicly traded entities have TOS = Terms of Service that all members agree to abide by, but the TOS is not law and can be challenged. If Alex Jones is banned because a publicly traded entity declares he has violated their TOS, they better be able to back it up else he can sue for all the damages and lost business suffered as a result.
BTTT
.
FreeRepublic will soon be caught in this snare by some means.
.
Insanely wrong.
Other than some securities laws publicly and privately held corporations are treated the same under the law.
You seem to be confused by the term publicly held. It doesn't mean that the corporation is owned by the general public - it isn't - it just means some portion of the equity is available for sale to the general public.
There are publicly owned enterprises - libraries, some universities, statutory corporations in many states and municipalities, etc. - which are owned by all citizens because they're funded by taxes, but that's not what we're talking about.
A publicly owned enterprise has to accommodate everyone because everyone is an owner.
With a few exceptions, which I'll get to, a publicly held company only has to accommodate it's shareholders to the extent that they get a vote.
There are public accommodation laws that say enterprises which are generally open to the public can't discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin", and in some states there are LGBT protections, but these laws apply equally to public and private companies (there are exemptions for private clubs and religious exemptions), so the ownership structure of FR or FB doesn't enter into it.
More to the point, no law prohibits discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint.
As long as the private parties abstain from disrupting, interfering with other private rooms such as walking in and telling other private parties to leave, they are allowed to carry on any activity that is legal.
No, they can carry on any activity that the owner agrees to in the rental agreement.
But even in the context of premium offerings, a publicly traded corporation is not allowed to deny access to premium services and products to any law-abiding customer that has the means to purchase them.
Absolutely wrong unless they're discriminating on the basis someone's membership in a protected class as I described above.
Where did you get this idea?
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter are NOT privately owned businesses...
Again, other than securities laws I challenge you to cite a law that applies differently to FB than to FR.
Here’s all you are getting for free, as posted on another thread:
Marsh v. Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
Look, you are not knowledgeable about law or case law. I am not going to put up with your caustic demands anymore because they abuse the time of others. Consult a competent counsel or do the legal research yourself.
"a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town."
I guess it would be possible to find a less germane case but I'm not sure how.
I am not going to put up with your caustic demands anymore...
What about my humble request to cite a single law that supports your contention?
Looks good! Over the past few years, some very right-minded speakers have worked with InfoWars to get their word out, while neo-Nazis have been calling Jones a “crypto-Zionist” and “Mossad agent” because of some of Jones’ pro-Israel content.
Some of the greater minds see the some of the crazier InfoWars content as a source of maniacal humor, so it looks like a go.
The accurate 9/11 “conspiracy” is that the deep state was monitoring the terrorists and allowed them to proceed in an attempted coup against Bush (there is evidence of an assassination attempt in Florida days before 9/11) and to further their globalist invasion plans. If we admit that the deep state exists now and is against Trump then they also existed back then and were against Bush and attempting to control Bush. Bush was not involved and was oblivious to all this. He’s just naive. Obama and McCain funded and armed ISIS terrorists and overthrew a stable Libyan state, attempted to overthrow a stable Egypt and attempted to overthrow a stable Syria. Those are very reasonable conclusions to reach with the current evidence we see of the deep state coming after Trump. Alex Jones.
Sorry meant to remove that last fragment starting with Alex Jones lol. Keep forgetting no edits here. :D
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.