User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:03:56 PM EST
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:07:11 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They should be able to run the company any way they want. Nobody is forcing you to use it and it's not run by the government. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:...A platform like Facebook should not have it both ways.... Beyond that, legally their authority ends. Because otherwise they are picking who can do commerce on the internet, which is not theirs. That is the point of their protections. They don't own you or the internet. They provide an open space for commerce and profit from everyone. If they suppress or promote political speech, it is then an advocacy organization, open to criminal and civil liability and the FCC and FEC has grounds to regulate them. They are like electric companies, water companies, phone companies, internet providers etc. But as far as I know a Russian subversive group, (or ISIS or drug cartels or insert foreign criminal organization here) identified as such, wouldn't have a claim to service, or first amendment rights, if removed at the request of the feds. I'm pretty sure they are breaking some federal law or other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:10:51 PM EST
[#3]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:18:38 PM EST
[#4]
It's the right call. It's a private company. Their rules, and all that.
And they really don't have to be fair, either. All they really have to do is follow their own interpretation of their published rules - which they can change on a whim. Now, if they do violate their own rules and ban or suspend someone that who wasn't breaking the rules, then they can get their tit in a ringer. (See Crowder and his half-Asian lawyer) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:26:13 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no... we are not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, we're allowing advocacy for communism on Arfcom now? Just another opinion, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:30:22 PM EST
[#6]
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 8:34:11 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not surprising at all for GD. Just the other day a member here said the mods were violating another posters First Amendment rights. LOL and a  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: 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 8:37:08 PM EST
[#8]
I haven't read the whole thread because I don't have time, but here's my take.
Facebook (and others) have been playing fast and loose with the rules. One minute they act like an open platform (as they were founded), then the next minute they act like a publisher, editing what is written. So, which is it? In the coming months or years they're going to have to choose which one they are and need to be regulated accordingly. Also, look at it like this: back in the day Ma Bell didn't deny anyone a phone number or line because of their religious or political beliefs. Or because of what they might say on that phone line. But that is what Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. are doing. Not to mention those companies hold a monopoly over social media and the internet. Just try to start a competing app or business, they hold the keys to your success and they're not going to let you. Just as Ma Bell was broken up back in the day, these companies may need to be broken up. Some of you claim "their business, their rules", but this is not the same thing. A Colorado baker being forced to do something against his religious beliefs is not the same as agiant corporation restricting what people (of a certain political affiliation) say. This is a case of multi-billion dollar businesses curtailing the ability of certain people to speak their mind or even start up competing businesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:48:47 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just as Ma Bell was broken up back in the day, these companies may need to be broken up. Some of you claim "their business, their rules", but that is not what this is. This is a case of multi-billion dollar businesses curtailing the ability of certain people to speak their mind or even start up competing businesses. Whether Facebook should be subject to traditional defamation laws is a completely different issue than whether the 1st Amendment applies to Facebook or whether Facebook is a monopoly or even whether it's a publisher. This is a CDA issue. Whether Facebook is a utility is just nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 8:58:33 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are curating, that is perfectly fine, but they should be held to the rules governing publishers. That means they are subject to civil suits for their content. That is all we are asking for. No new laws. No new rules or regulation. No statism. Just reclassify these defacto publishers as publishers, subject to the same rules already in place for publishers. I'm beginning to think a bunch of you are being obtuse. It’s so_predictable |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 9:10:47 PM EST
[#11]
Facebook is not a neutral platform however, and it must lose its platform immunity, just like Google and YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 9:12:39 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So many closet statists here. Wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 9:29:48 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except Net Neutrally would have nothing to do with this, because Facebook is not an ISP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
time to start throwing all those net neutrality arguments back at the left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 9:30:18 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's all it was? Just a little six-figure op with a handful of people? That's the whole of the Russian collusion accusation? Wow! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They bitch about a dozen 'Russian' hackers with less than $100,000 online opinion influencing and losing the election for Hillary. Lose their minds. Algorithms that deplatform the entire right and they are ok with it... Then of course that led to the coup attempt via Mueller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 9:31:21 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That’s not what net neutrality is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 9:33:33 PM EST
[#16]
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 10:05:35 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand exactly what it is says, but it's fairly clear that you're failing to understand what I said. Let's recap: 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.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 10:12:32 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since it appears you can't figure out the logic of your own argument let's try this a different way. Did the Colorado case create a precedent on whether or not a state can compel an individual to bake a cake for a protected class? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 7:41:19 AM EST
[#19]
Let's look at this way: if the gov said "if you get protection from libel etc. then you're an open forum and 1A applies".... what is the worst possible outcome of that?
I ask because the worst possible outcome of the alternative is the near-complete deplatforming of non-socialist political discourse and decades of tyrannical rule followed by a bloody revolution, the combination of which destroys our nation. It wouldn't hurt Facebook at ALL if the 1A applied...it would likely actually increase their market penetration/profits. Is that the horrible outcome that we're desperately trying to avoid here? The horror. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:13:26 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Facebook is not a neutral platform however, and it must lose its platform immunity, just like Google and YouTube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:18:17 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of folks here love big government when it suits them. Their company, their rules. Or, more government? You can't have both. On one hand, they are not a public forum and are free to censor anything they want in another court they are a public forum and as such are not responsible for the content published on their forum. It's BS you can one have or the other, not both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:20:20 AM EST
[#22]
The federal judge is correct. The Bill of Rights is with respect to the government interfering with your rights. Facebook is not the government. No First Amendment issues.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:23:29 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they are curating, that is perfectly fine, but they should be held to the rules governing publishers. That means they are subject to civil suits for their content. That is all we are asking for. No new laws. No new rules or regulation. No statism. Just reclassify these defacto publishers as publishers, subject to the same rules already in place for publishers. I'm beginning to think a bunch of you are being obtuse. They'd be fooked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:46:38 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, just change their designation from platform to publisher under 203 CDA. They'd be fooked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they are curating, that is perfectly fine, but they should be held to the rules governing publishers. That means they are subject to civil suits for their content. That is all we are asking for. No new laws. No new rules or regulation. No statism. Just reclassify these defacto publishers as publishers, subject to the same rules already in place for publishers. I'm beginning to think a bunch of you are being obtuse. They'd be fooked. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:53:57 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hold on, I am not defending Facebook, I am defending the Ruling, which is correct. Facebook is not a Public forum. Constitutional law tells us this. That doesn't mean they aren't a shit, socialist, evil company. Wanting to regulate Facebook by any means possible is Statist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who says Progressivism had been good? You know who the Progressives of the 20th century have been? The Statists. All Statists. Wilson, Mussolini, Lenin,Stalin, Hitler, etc... I bet you are conflating 'Progress' with 'Progressivism'... You know who showed up in this thread defending FB? All the resident 'Statists'.... Wanting to regulate Facebook by any means possible is Statist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 10:57:50 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's Section 230, not 203. Also, it explicitly states that "interactive computer services" shall not be treated as a publisher of materials from third-party content provider. This whole "platform" versus "publisher" distinction has basically been invented out of thin air without any real legal basis... At least it's not the goberment. :/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 11:09:48 AM EST
[#27]
Worth nothing (again) that Section 230 of the CDA protects all web services that host third-party content - to include Arfcom. There's nothing "special" that has been granted to Facebook, Google, etc.
Without these legal protections, it would trivial for a group like Moms Demand Action to create two accounts on Arfcom and then have one post something defamatory against the other - and then turn around and sue the Avilas (and/or Brownells) for hosting the material. How many bullshit lawsuits could the owners afford before the place gets shut down? In other words, be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 11:12:24 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cite of actual case where that worked? if the answers is yes, then you have the precedent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 11:18:24 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's look at this way: if the gov said "if you get protection from libel etc. then you're an open forum and 1A applies".... what is the worst possible outcome of that? I ask because the worst possible outcome of the alternative is the near-complete deplatforming of non-socialist political discourse and decades of tyrannical rule followed by a bloody revolution, the combination of which destroys our nation. It wouldn't hurt Facebook at ALL if the 1A applied...it would likely actually increase their market penetration/profits. Is that the horrible outcome that we're desperately trying to avoid here? The horror. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 11:22:15 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Twitter IS a public forum but Facebook is NOT? Do I have that right based on the recent rulings, or does this overrule the twitter ruling as well? I'm fine with the ruling so long as it's applied equally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 11:27:51 AM EST
[#31]
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: 7/22/2019 1:05:48 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ruling was consistent with the Constitution. <- read that again. Do we want judges that rule with the Constitution or against it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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: 7/22/2019 1:17:49 PM EST
[#33]
being oppressed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 1:20:27 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well they ruled fb is not a public forum. If the internet is not a public forum, then what is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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: 7/22/2019 1:26:40 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry but political beliefs aren't a legally protected class. What Facebook and others are doing is needed, it's all of our responsibilities to stamp out racism and fascism wherever they rear their heads. We can't allow hateful ideologies a platform to spread their poison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 2:25:48 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the 'worst possible outcome' if the gov can arbitrarily change centuries of Constitutional law? I can't imagine that power being abused at all..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's look at this way: if the gov said "if you get protection from libel etc. then you're an open forum and 1A applies".... what is the worst possible outcome of that? I ask because the worst possible outcome of the alternative is the near-complete deplatforming of non-socialist political discourse and decades of tyrannical rule followed by a bloody revolution, the combination of which destroys our nation. It wouldn't hurt Facebook at ALL if the 1A applied...it would likely actually increase their market penetration/profits. Is that the horrible outcome that we're desperately trying to avoid here? The horror. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 2:31:32 PM EST
[#37]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 2:32:47 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So many closet statists here. Wow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 2:34:28 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point they are just making up law in order to battle conservatives and that's it. They will honor the first amendment when it suits them and destroy it when it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So Twitter IS a public forum but Facebook is NOT? Do I have that right based on the recent rulings, or does this overrule the twitter ruling as well? I'm fine with the ruling way so long as it's applied equally. It's really not that hard to follow as to why certain ones can be blocked and others can't.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2019 3:12:48 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is the 'worst possible outcome' if the gov can arbitrarily change centuries of Constitutional law? I can't imagine that power being abused at all..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Let's look at this way: if the gov said "if you get protection from libel etc. then you're an open forum and 1A applies".... what is the worst possible outcome of that? I ask because the worst possible outcome of the alternative is the near-complete deplatforming of non-socialist political discourse and decades of tyrannical rule followed by a bloody revolution, the combination of which destroys our nation. It wouldn't hurt Facebook at ALL if the 1A applied...it would likely actually increase their market penetration/profits. Is that the horrible outcome that we're desperately trying to avoid here? The horror. |
|
|
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.
Attached File