User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:42:15 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Federal law prohibits an American citizen or resident to travel to a foreign country with intent to engage in any form of sexual conduct with a minor (defined as persons under 18 years of age). It is also illegal to help organize or assist another person to travel for these purposes. This crime is a form of human trafficking, also referred to as child sex tourism. Convicted offenders face fines and up to 30 years of imprisonment edit: has the civics class brigade read Marsh v Alabama yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:43:21 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean, it could be considered private forum, such as a theater, or even the realm of art exhibit. I know that sounds weird, but theater owners and owners of art studios who have exhibited vulgar and rude content have usually be given a pass and free from censor. Just saying this isn't a one or another thing. They don't have to be public forum or publisher. Hell, the courts could define something new. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Then, it is a publisher and should be liable for all the content it publishes, as a newspaper or book publisher. Facebook should not be allowed to have it both ways. That is all we "statists" (LOL!) are pointing out. Just saying this isn't a one or another thing. They don't have to be public forum or publisher. Hell, the courts could define something new. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:45:53 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let me help you understand with a quote from the Court's opinion: "The Free Exercise Clause bars even “subtle departures from neutrality” on matters of religion. Id., at 534. Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs. * * * The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires." Now let me break it down in easily understandable bits: 1. The Free Exercise Clause bars even subtle departures from neutrality when considering religious rights under that clause. 2. The Colorado Commission's departure from neutrality wasn't subtle. 3. When a part of the Constitution protects someone's rights and requires the government to behave in a certain manner when weighing those rights, you have violated that person's Constitutionally protected right to a neutral consideration of their rights under that clause. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is Facebook public property or domain? ETA: I disagree with this point of ruling by SCOTUS, I believe businesses are private and can discriminate against views they disagree with. But SCOTUS opened that genie up and it should be abolished or applied evenly. 
When has the supreme court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake? So as I said, On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake. In that instance they said it violated the baker's rights. Here, you can read the opinion for yourself. "The Free Exercise Clause bars even “subtle departures from neutrality” on matters of religion. Id., at 534. Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs. * * * The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires." Now let me break it down in easily understandable bits: 1. The Free Exercise Clause bars even subtle departures from neutrality when considering religious rights under that clause. 2. The Colorado Commission's departure from neutrality wasn't subtle. 3. When a part of the Constitution protects someone's rights and requires the government to behave in a certain manner when weighing those rights, you have violated that person's Constitutionally protected right to a neutral consideration of their rights under that clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:48:31 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope????  Quoted:
I object to that. Some entities become so pervasive, so popular and powerful, that they in fact become utilities, and should be so regulated. yahoo apple microsoft SW BELL Verison and other carriers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:50:59 PM EST
[#5]
So, we're allowing advocacy for communism on Arfcom now?
Just another opinion, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:52:19 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, we're allowing advocacy for communism on Arfcom now? Just another opinion, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 5:59:45 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this means that Facebook is now a curator or publisher of ideas, and can be sued for libelous postings? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:03:33 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of that supports the statement I highlighted in red. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is Facebook public property or domain? ETA: I disagree with this point of ruling by SCOTUS, I believe businesses are private and can discriminate against views they disagree with. But SCOTUS opened that genie up and it should be abolished or applied evenly.
When has the supreme court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake? So as I said, On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake. In that instance they said it violated the baker's rights. Here, you can read the opinion for yourself. "The Free Exercise Clause bars even “subtle departures from neutrality” on matters of religion. Id., at 534. Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs. * * * The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires." Now let me break it down in easily understandable bits: 1. The Free Exercise Clause bars even subtle departures from neutrality when considering religious rights under that clause. 2. The Colorado Commission's departure from neutrality wasn't subtle. 3. When a part of the Constitution protects someone's rights and requires the government to behave in a certain manner when weighing those rights, you have violated that person's Constitutionally protected right to a neutral consideration of their rights under that clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:06:02 PM EST
[#9]
An Øbama appointee, I'm shocked!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:12:01 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:16:04 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An Øbama appointee, I'm shocked! Anyone with a basic grasp of high school civic should be able to understand this ruling, as it complies with a fundamental premise of Constitutional law. This is very basic stuff. I find it disconcerting how many commentators here cannot grasp it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:16:43 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And there's the first time I've ever seen you promoting the concept of private property and less gov't interference, aside from sarcastically trolling others. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:21:14 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who appointed the judge is completely irrelevant in this case. Anyone with a basic grasp of high school civic should be able to understand this ruling, as it complies with a fundamental premise of Constitutional law. This is very basic stuff. I find it disconcerting how many commentators here cannot grasp it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:22:50 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the constitution is only good when it agrees with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So many closet statists here. Wow. Fuckerberg, google, etc buy out and curb stomp any potential competition with impunity, effectively strangling new platforms in the cradle. And of course, free speech is either all-encompassing, or it's not. The law says it's not. Per current law, facebook should be sued into the ground for attempts to influence elections, for slander/libel, harassment, discrimination, etc. Discrimination based on disability, political views, religion, or race, for instance; we already have laws against discrimination that apply to businesses, why wouldn't they apply to FB? If fags can sue a christian bakery to get them to bake a cake, why wouldn't it be feasible to sue facebook or google for taking down or censoring conservative viewpoints? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:25:00 PM EST
[#15]
That "judge" is an imbecile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:27:26 PM EST
[#16]
You guys saying "good" are literally saying "well, as long as the court says its okay, we can continue to cede and censure conservative messages".
Thanks i guess. With friends like you, who needs democrats? You're fucking siding with them while we get shutted out, marginalized. Then when we're a miniority in our own country. "Well i got mine, be poor somewhere else, should have bought cheap and stacked deep," |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:28:14 PM EST
[#17]
If Facebook is moderating content, which they are, then they are a publisher.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:28:57 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because you have to buy your way in so it isn’t public? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:29:30 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Facebook is moderating content, which they are, then they are a publisher. Yes. They are a publisher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:30:11 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that's exactly what it does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is Facebook public property or domain? ETA: I disagree with this point of ruling by SCOTUS, I believe businesses are private and can discriminate against views they disagree with. But SCOTUS opened that genie up and it should be abolished or applied evenly.
When has the supreme court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake? So as I said, On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake. In that instance they said it violated the baker's rights. Here, you can read the opinion for yourself. "The Free Exercise Clause bars even “subtle departures from neutrality” on matters of religion. Id., at 534. Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs. * * * The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires." Now let me break it down in easily understandable bits: 1. The Free Exercise Clause bars even subtle departures from neutrality when considering religious rights under that clause. 2. The Colorado Commission's departure from neutrality wasn't subtle. 3. When a part of the Constitution protects someone's rights and requires the government to behave in a certain manner when weighing those rights, you have violated that person's Constitutionally protected right to a neutral consideration of their rights under that clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:30:31 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That "judge" is an imbecile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:31:54 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys saying "good" are literally saying "well, as long as the court says its okay, we can continue to cede and censure conservative messages". Thanks i guess. With friends like you, who needs democrats? You're fucking siding with them while we get shutted out, marginalized. Then when we're a miniority in our own country. "Well i got mine, be poor somewhere else, should have bought cheap and stacked deep," |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:34:11 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you care about conservatives, you just want to protect leftists? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't worry guys, none of the policies being advocated in this thread could ever come back and bite conservatives. Ever. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:36:59 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would one go about "taking over the internet" and when are you presenting at Blackhat? Again - there's nothing stopping you from starting your own platform. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You're advocating for more government regulation under the rallying cry "freedom"? Bold strategy, Cotton. If nothing is done, it will inevitably happen. They already have a monopoly. I consider the internet to be a free public domain, these businesses are just being allowed to use it. Again - there's nothing stopping you from starting your own platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:38:27 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, they wouldn't. We're advocating for what is legal, rather than beneficial. S230 protections exist with a price, and they know that. Don't want to pay the price, then you don't get the special legal protections. THAT is what so many of the pseudo-intellectuals around here fail to understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:39:15 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would think membership itself qualifies it as private? Really I am spit balling here after a bunch of drinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:39:55 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean, it could be considered private forum, such as a theater, or even the realm of art exhibit. I know that sounds weird, but theater owners and owners of art studios who have exhibited vulgar and rude content have usually be given a pass and free from censor. Just saying this isn't a one or another thing. They don't have to be public forum or publisher. Hell, the courts could define something new. Rather, we are talking immunity from civil liability for the content they carry. Sites such as Facebook were given by the CDA immunity from lawsuits for content they carried as they would be considered a platform, not a publisher. Today, these sites routinely curate content, the way that publishers do. If they are now acting as publishers, should they not be held to the rules for publishers? That is the issue here. Has nothing whatever to do with expanding government power or statism. Government already has rules for publishers. Many of us think it is time to apply those rules to Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:41:02 PM EST
[#28]
Here's a good primer on Section 230 of the CDA by a guy who literally wrote a book on the subject. Worth a read.
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:41:18 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why? What makes Facebook a public forum, and qualifies that judge as a imbecile? They should not be given immunity afforded to Platforms, while they get to delete content they don't like on their site. some of you people.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:41:55 PM EST
[#30]
I find it at least a little ironic that those calling for "less regulation", saying "their site their rules" etc. are completely ignoring the fact that Facebook is already covered by regulation such as communication decency act. This is like saying we should have open borders since it permits free movement, while completely ignoring the vast welfare state that ought not to exist under an ideal system, yet does exist nonetheless.
The key problem here is that Facebook (and other left-coast big tech companies) are trying to game the system by both claiming to be a public forum (and receive the benefits of doing so) while behaving in a way that undoubtedly takes sides. It's not just taking sides on matters of speech either. Just a few weeks ago, Facebook had a policy which explicitly permitted violent threats against individuals and groups so long as they were on the Orwellian-sounding "Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy". IANAL but somehow I don't think permitting illegal activity under any circumstances is going to fly, much less Facebook itself deciding who is and isn't allowed to be violently attacked! Do not post:
Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s), where threat is defined as any of the following: Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence Calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organisation or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy) Including content where no target is specified but a symbol represents the target and/or includes a visual of an armament to represent violence Statements advocating for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organisation or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy) Aspirational or conditional statements to commit high-severity violence (unless the target is an organisation or individual covered in the Dangerous Individuals and Organisations Policy) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:42:41 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except money and unfair competition. Half the people in this thread are asking the government to regulate a company they see as unfair. Fine. I understand being scared and wanting a Republican President to do something about it, even if it means sacrificing the Constitution. But is there no long term thought process? If that government demon is unleashed and allowed, do you think ARFCOM would stand a chance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:44:54 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I aspire to be you in an hour when I’m off work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:47:18 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facebook was started in a garage right? Myspace was king at the time. Half the people in this thread are asking the government to regulate a company they see as unfair. Fine. I understand being scared and wanting a Republican President to do something about it, even if it means sacrificing the Constitution. But is there no long term thought process? If that government demon is unleashed and allowed, do you think ARFCOM would stand a chance? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Except money and unfair competition. Half the people in this thread are asking the government to regulate a company they see as unfair. Fine. I understand being scared and wanting a Republican President to do something about it, even if it means sacrificing the Constitution. But is there no long term thought process? If that government demon is unleashed and allowed, do you think ARFCOM would stand a chance? It is about Facebook losing lawsuit immunity because they've become a publisher when they started censoring content. JFC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:48:36 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facebook requests special protections, as a platform. Meaning they are not liable for content that users posts. But once Facebook starts editing content, they're supposed to be in violation of that and become a publisher. Which should strip them of lawsuit immunity from stuff that is posted on their site...... because they are actively modifying user content and banning users for political statements. They should not be given immunity afforded to Platforms, while they get to delete content they don't like on their site. some of you people..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:49:26 PM EST
[#35]
In the Article it says:
"First Amendment protections granted by the U.S. Constitution." The Constitution only OUTLINES our Rights, it does not give them and those Rights predate Government...so even if Government "outlaws" or "bans", or writes legislation up against our Rights that legislation is "Null and Void" and it is our Duty as Citizens to ignore Unjust Laws. Government cannot give you anything unless it has taken it from you beforehand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:51:10 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It really isn't about government take over or the 1st amendment. It is about Facebook losing lawsuit immunity because they've become a publisher when they started censoring content. JFC. Sad state of affairs this guy is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:53:18 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the Article it says: "First Amendment protections granted by the U.S. Constitution." The Constitution only OUTLINES our Rights, it does not give them and those Rights predate Government...so even if Government "outlaws" or "bans", or writes legislation up against our Rights that legislation is "Null and Void" and it is our Duty as Citizens to ignore Unjust Laws. Government cannot give you anything unless it has taken it from you beforehand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 6:59:43 PM EST
[#38]
How about Facebook is not a government actor, so there are no restraints upon it arising from the First Amendment?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:00:04 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Facebook was started in a garage right? Myspace was king at the time. Half the people in this thread are asking the government to regulate a company they see as unfair. Fine. I understand being scared and wanting a Republican President to do something about it, even if it means sacrificing the Constitution. But is there no long term thought process? If that government demon is unleashed and allowed, do you think ARFCOM would stand a chance?
It was started in a Harvard dorm room and then expanded in a house in Palo Alto. They made a movie about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:01:31 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was started in a Harvard dorm room and then expanded in a house in Palo Alto. They made a movie about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:01:43 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they preventing black people from using it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope???? https://www.zinnedproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Woolsworth-Sit-In.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:05:50 PM EST
[#42]
Would you guys be more comfortable if FB was called, "Leftist Crap Posting Sight Sponsored by Socialists and Communists". Because that is what it is and we don't need the government to control it. Use your own discretion for crying out loud. Government doesn't need to get involved, be an adult and log off if you don't like it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:06:31 PM EST
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:07:10 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So your saying we have a right to Facebook? Or that Facebook has a right to sensor content on its Private website? Or that Facebook is a Pubic forum, and we the people should fight to take it! Give it to the masses! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:07:58 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Couldn't they just argue they are curating content for their user base, the same way Publishers curate content? Or editing for inaccuracy? (Whether it is accurate or not)? A newspaper can delete an opinion piece. A News Media Website can retract an article? What prevents Facebook from saying that's what they are doing? They are allowed to moderate content to remove generally "bad" things like criminal activity. But as we saw earlier this month, they have even explicitly allowed criminal activity as long as it is against people they disagree with! If their purpose in moderating content is for the public good, then allowing criminal activity seems to be a bad way of going about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:10:22 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you guys be more comfortable if FB was called, "Leftist Crap Posting Sight Sponsored by Socialists and Communists". Because that is what it is and we don't need the government to control it. Use your own discretion for crying out loud. Government doesn't need to get involved, be an adult and log off if you don't like it. A platform like Facebook should not have it both ways. But they are continued to be allowed to have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:18:05 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First Amendment covers .GOV infringement on your free speech. FB is a private entity. Judge is correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:47:14 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm starting to question whether or not you understand what you are quoting. The court did not decide whether or not a state can compel a baker to bake a cake, they ruled that when the Colorado supreme court decided the case they were not neutral in their application of the law. It overturned the ruling not on the substance of the law, but rather on procedural grounds for how the state applied the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is Facebook public property or domain? ETA: I disagree with this point of ruling by SCOTUS, I believe businesses are private and can discriminate against views they disagree with. But SCOTUS opened that genie up and it should be abolished or applied evenly.
When has the supreme court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake? So as I said, On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake. In that instance they said it violated the baker's rights. Here, you can read the opinion for yourself. "The Free Exercise Clause bars even “subtle departures from neutrality” on matters of religion. Id., at 534. Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs. * * * The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires." Now let me break it down in easily understandable bits: 1. The Free Exercise Clause bars even subtle departures from neutrality when considering religious rights under that clause. 2. The Colorado Commission's departure from neutrality wasn't subtle. 3. When a part of the Constitution protects someone's rights and requires the government to behave in a certain manner when weighing those rights, you have violated that person's Constitutionally protected right to a neutral consideration of their rights under that clause. When has the supreme court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake? June 4, 2018, but the Court ruled in favor of the baker. They did not rule on the legality of the rule, they ruled that the court was explicitly biased against the Baker. Was a bakery ordered to bake a cake? Was that order overturned by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 4, 2018? Does the U.S. Supreme Court overturn orders that are legal? Did the U.S. Supreme Court hold that the baker's rights were violated? They did not rule on the legality of the rule, they ruled that the court was explicitly biased against the Baker. Ignore the distinction between a substantive basis and a procedural basis, and follow along with what I wrote: You're right they didn't rule that a regulation requiring bakeries to bake gay wedding cakes was illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's order that the baker in that case must bake a gay wedding cake violated his right to the free exercise of his religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and they reversed the order. So as I said, On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled on the legality of forcing a bakery to bake a cake. In that instance they said it violated the baker's rights. I really don't know how I can make it any clearer for you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:53:48 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:...A platform like Facebook should not have it both ways.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 7:57:31 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is Facebook public property or domain? Facebook is a privately owned company. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
