Skip to comments.Facebook, Google Pour Big Money Into Lobbying Congress While Blacklisting Conservatives
Posted on 05/04/2019 9:39:38 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
click here to read article
I guess they threw congress a bone when they included Farrakan but come on!
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was 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. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
Social media and search engines have assumed the role of Big Brother in 1984. They even work together to change history.
Who cares about fakebook ?
We all know the only website on planet earth has any meaning it all is free republic!
Thank you Jim !
In a way they did, but the media is covering Farrakan as a “Conservative”.
Congress: The finest government branch money can buy.
I am missing your point. Facebook is not a public government owned space. Further, Facebook is not the government. So, a private company controlling access to private property is far away from the government controlling speech, the very definition of un- Constitutional censorship, on government property.
Facebook should remain free to blacklist as much as it wishes.
The cake baker case was exactly about this matter. Private people should not be forced to express someone elses speech.
The road to despotism
When you take money in any form of contract you're required to follow the rules of said contract.
The US government entered into a number of contracts with Facebook thereby requiring Facebook to conform to said contract(s)
The lobbying is set up to avoid legal issues with those contracts they already signed.
The strategy in this war is getting complex.
First, hit them hard with FCC rules and anti trust attacks. Second, take away their ability to censor free speech.
Right now there are two primary type of services. A publisher and a platform. Social medias claim they're neither and does not need to conform to either types of services which is what they're lobbying for.
A publisher needs to check every word that is published which can't be done by social media. Yet in Europe that is what they're attempting to have social media's conform to.
In my opinion they're platforms. As such many politicians use their services to express their positions on issues and citizens can respond. Which means they can't be regulated other then the braking of state laws.
Again, social media's what to be neither. I personally get shadow banned while talking with congressional people in these forums. They shouldn't be allowed to take down opinions on a political platform. Unless there is a law broken.
On any given day Free Republic hovers around the 2500th most popular website in the United States.
Facebook is 3rd. Twitter is currently 10th. These are the sites where people are. These are the places where conservatives and, most importantly, Trump-supporters need to be fighting in the trenches to get our message heard!
Conservative voices are increasingly silenced from the primary internet platforms that speak to the world while Liberals have free rein to spout their garbage uncensored and without debate. And far too many so-called "conservatives" are complacent about this silencing, naively believing that social media is frivolous and inconsequential. They couldn't be more wrong.
I love this place but Free Republic is preaching to the choir. We need to be reaching the masses and destroying liberal talking points WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE US! Trump and his supporters used social media masterfully to win an election. I doubt the President has ever heard of this place.
Facebook can legally function either as a publisher or a public square. If it functions as a publisher, it can blacklist anyone it wishes, but also assumes liability for defamation lawsuits by people or organizations who make false or libelous statements. If it functions as a public square, it cannot take down posts, except for specific reasons, mostly having to do with the legality of the posting, such as child porn and direct threats. Facebook currently straddles the fence, acting as editors, but claiming they're a public square.
Ok... I'm done ha
You have copies or can point to these contracts? Id like to see this contract if one exists between Facebook and the US government. Especially one where Facebook somehow surrenders its Constitutional rights.
>>Facebook is not a public government owned space.
Nor was the town in that case.
I'll bet he has.
What law are they getting around? Publishers check words for accuracy so as to not engage in libel. A news paper cannot be held to libel or defamation standards for opinion pieces. And the certainly are not accountable for oped pieces by readers.
Jim is not accountable for all the nonsense, lies, and misleading crap you find here. Jim can also ban any of us. Good for Jim and good for Facebook.
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.