User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:15:33 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Face palm. I object to statist ideas like this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. You'd think these patriots would take issue with all the state laws mandating NRA training, specifically, for carry & hunting licenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:15:58 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope????  It requires a user to create an account which is allowed to exist at the sole discretion of the company. Do you need to create an account with the city to go down to the park and rant about whatever? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:20:53 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, the judge is well grounded in the fact that you don't have a right to the internet, and that Facebook is still a private company that is not produced or maintained by a government entity. ETA: seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:21:34 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It’s not a public forum. It requires a user to create an account which is allowed to exist at the sole discretion of the company. Do you need to create an account with the city to go down to the park and rant about whatever? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope???? It requires a user to create an account which is allowed to exist at the sole discretion of the company. Do you need to create an account with the city to go down to the park and rant about whatever? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:25:38 PM EST
[#5]
The irony here’s is that everyone crying about Facebook sounds like they got their education on constitutional law from some retard’s post on that same site.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:27:08 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, the judge is well grounded in the fact that you don't have a right to the internet, and that Facebook is still a private company that is not produced or maintained by a government entity. ETA: seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope???? ETA: seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:27:39 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 2:28:14 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it’s public domain they can’t censor points of view as they choose. If it’s not public domain then they are liable for content as well as subject to the same regulation as newspapers and TV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:28:47 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. It is one fucking web platform and there are a gazillion others out there if you don't like Facebook's rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:30:14 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Face palm. I object to statist ideas like this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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: 7/21/2019 2:30:38 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The irony here’s is that everyone crying about Facebook sounds like they got their education on constitutional law from some retard’s post on that same site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:32:17 PM EST
[#12]
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Is Facebook "Congress"? No? Then it can do as it pleases without violating the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:32:48 PM EST
[#13]
People need to delete fb, go to another similar style social site and let everyone know they're no longer on fb and posts or questions will not be seen or heard.
Of course fb has sucked so many in for so long that they're so deeply tied to it they'd have to take some time to fill up their pics, timelines or whatever crap they have on it. So glad I deleted it after six months many years ago. Told the friends and family use phone, email or text. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:33:58 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ^^^Wow^^^ No. Absolutely, no. I would love to hear a thorough, detailed explanation of your ridiculous values. First off, facebook is hardly all powerful. In fact, our elected US govt representatives could shut facebook down or tumble the stock in an instant. That hardly makes a case for omnipotence. It's just a company. A company that provides an alternative to government controlled communications (hint: that's a good thing.) It's also a product that clearly provides value to millions, if not a billion, people. So, what exactly needs to be corrected? What type of regulation would you pass (except the kind that makes what was once legal, illegal - turns law-abiding companies into criminals - trades threats for compliance). In the words of Varys, "power resides where men believe it resides." You'll have a hard time convincing me that it resides in Mark Zuckerberg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:34:45 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, the judge is well grounded in the fact that you don't have a right to the internet, and that Facebook is still a private company that is not produced or maintained by a government entity. ETA: seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:35:36 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are operating under certain protections as a public forum. Now that they aren’t, we can sue them for libel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:35:47 PM EST
[#17]
wow the derp here is strong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:37:00 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s not a public forum. It requires a user to create an account which is allowed to exist at the sole discretion of the company. Do you need to create an account with the city to go down to the park and rant about whatever? So I suppose you would first be told to leave if you're ranting away folowed by police force if you refuse. Homeless camping is allowed without a permit though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:44:38 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He has a valid point, that when an entity gets big enough it wields the same power as a tyrannical government, and we have an obligation to oppose that...but Facebook isn't mandatory and isn't necessary for government services, legal protection, representation, or anything else to do with government that's actually important. So we aren't there yet. You'd think these patriots would take issue with all the state laws mandating NRA training, specifically, for carry & hunting licenses. Quote HistoryQuoted: He has a valid point, that when an entity gets big enough it wields the same power as a tyrannical government, and we have an obligation to oppose that...but Facebook isn't mandatory and isn't necessary for government services, legal protection, representation, or anything else to do with government that's actually important. So we aren't there yet. You'd think these patriots would take issue with all the state laws mandating NRA training, specifically, for carry & hunting licenses. I think it’s a complicated situation, but I also think it’s completely fair to expect certain standards of behavior in exchange for something as broad as CDA 230 protection, just for starters. The government/private actor distinction is frankly not all that relevant, what should concern you is concentrations of power...and a short list of private actors taking ownership of the public square by offering neutral platforms for political discourse, then manipulating the discussion for their own ends concerns me regardless of whether or not they happen to be the de jure government. Also food for thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:47:24 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The irony here’s is that everyone crying about Facebook sounds like they got their education on constitutional law from some retard’s post on that same site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:47:34 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:51:12 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but you can sue the actual individual responsible for using that social media account for libel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: They are operating under certain protections as a public forum. Now that they aren’t, we can sue them for libel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:55:10 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Is Facebook "Congress"? No? Then it can do as it pleases without violating the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:57:35 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m sorry, but, unless they are a public forum, then they and they alone, are responsible for the published content. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:58:23 PM EST
[#25]
The democrats are slapping us in the face with a giant cock that has "their business, their rules" tattooed on it.
You think it's coincidence all these "private companies" are attacking conservatism all at once? They tested the waters in 2016 and now 2020 they'll go full steam ahead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 2:59:02 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center says that it isnt that cut and dried. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Is Facebook "Congress"? No? Then it can do as it pleases without violating the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:00:24 PM EST
[#27]
I love freedom. Except when people use it to do stuff I don't like. Then, I want the government to make them stop.
Also, Google "section 230 of the CDA." Then, contact your Congressman and Senators. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:02:09 PM EST
[#28]
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. Those are all evil and hateful ideologies which are far greater threats to the practically non existent racism and fascism. I can't remember the last time a real racist act occurred, since they all turn out to be false flags and crying wolf. In their minds everyone they don't like, disagrees with, argues facts, or calls them out on their BS is racist. The only ones pushing racism and fascism are on the left, which are protected on Facebook and others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:02:41 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope???? TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:03:21 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love freedom. Except when people use it to do stuff I don't like. Then, I want the government to make them stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:03:40 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And this means that Facebook is now a curator or publisher of ideas, and can be sued for libelous postings? 
TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:06:27 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So many closet statists here. Wow. So, fuck FB and the rest of the Leftist Social Media and the Leftist judges that protect them. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:06:50 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then why aren't they stamping out socialism, communism, leftists, Islamists, or globalism. Those are all evil and hateful ideologies which are far greater threats to the practically non existent racism and fascism. I can't remember the last time a real racist act occurred, since they all turn out to be false flags and crying wolf. In their minds everyone they don't like, disagrees with, argues facts, or calls them out on their BS is racist. The only ones pushing racism and fascism are on the left, which are protected on Facebook and others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:08:29 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not at all. In a vacuum, I’d probably be ok with that ruling. But we are at war. Use anything you have to defeat the enemy and anyone aiding them. So, fuck FB and the rest of the Leftist Social Media and the Leftist judges that protect them. TC Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So many closet statists here. Wow. So, fuck FB and the rest of the Leftist Social Media and the Leftist judges that protect them. TC 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:09:44 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same way a bakery is forced to bake cakes for people that broadcast First Amendment views that the bakery owners religiously disagree with. Either it applies to ALL public places or it applies to none, can't have it both ways. 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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:11:44 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 
TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:15:14 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love freedom. Except when people use it to do stuff I don't like. Then, I want the government to make them stop. Then there's Google which is trying to control access to information. Except you supported it when the government was weaponized by corrupt administration and intelligence officials to spy on and try to entrap the President/campaign based on fabricated opposition research paid for by their parties candidate. Then engaged in a soft coup, launching a baseless witch hunt to try to find anything to hurt the President with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:16:17 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, "the communists are the real fascists". Socialists/communists, are indeed cut from the same cloth as fascists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:17:11 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, the judge is well grounded in the fact that you don't have a right to the internet, and that Facebook is still a private company that is not produced or maintained by a government entity. ETA: seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOT a public forum?? Is this judge on dope???? ETA: seems like judge decided "their website, their rules"? If Facebook was just a content server as it was originally started, then I don't think they need to be regulated. But as soon as they start moderating and acting like editors of the content, like they have been doing for a few years, then I believe they need to be regulated. Either way, it's most definitely a public forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:17:21 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The under_score team takes the field!
TC Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
TC It's Ok, keep swinging, try hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:18:16 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it’s public domain they can’t censor points of view as they choose. If it’s not public domain then they are liable for content as well as subject to the same regulation as newspapers and TV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:18:56 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The difference is, what people want is for freedom to be exercised on these public platforms like they portray themselves to be, instead of them being weaponized to silence differing politicals opinions and hide information that hurts their side. Then there's Google which is trying to control access to information. Except you supported it when the government was weaponized by corrupt administration and intelligence officials to spy on and try to entrap the President/campaign based on fabricated opposition research paid for by their parties candidate. Then engaged in a soft coup, launching a baseless witch hunt to try to find anything to hurt the President with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love freedom. Except when people use it to do stuff I don't like. Then, I want the government to make them stop. Then there's Google which is trying to control access to information. Except you supported it when the government was weaponized by corrupt administration and intelligence officials to spy on and try to entrap the President/campaign based on fabricated opposition research paid for by their parties candidate. Then engaged in a soft coup, launching a baseless witch hunt to try to find anything to hurt the President with. 1. The federal government did a "soft coup" wargle bargle. 2. The federal government should totally regulate more social media. Pick one, bro. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:19:11 PM EST
[#43]
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 3:20:46 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about you go create a product that fills whatever niche you're talking about instead of begging the federal government to get involved? 1. The federal government did a "soft coup" wargle bargle. 2. The federal government should totally regulate more social media. Pick one, bro. Freedom or die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:20:49 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. She’s on the Left. Kinda the same thing. TC Small Gov supporters should cheer for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:20:59 PM EST
[#46]
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 3:21:40 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So many closet statists here. Wow. So, fuck FB and the rest of the Leftist Social Media and the Leftist judges that protect them. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:21:45 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't care, this is war. Freedom or die. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: How about you go create a product that fills whatever niche you're talking about instead of begging the federal government to get involved? 1. The federal government did a "soft coup" wargle bargle. 2. The federal government should totally regulate more social media. Pick one, bro. Freedom or die.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:22:45 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is a Statist when it fits his point of view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2019 3:22:49 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't care, this is war. Freedom or die. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: How about you go create a product that fills whatever niche you're talking about instead of begging the federal government to get involved? 1. The federal government did a "soft coup" wargle bargle. 2. The federal government should totally regulate more social media. Pick one, bro. Freedom or die. Bold strategy, Cotton. |
|
|
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.
