Trump Blasts Social Media ‘Censorship': ‘Discriminating Against Republican/Conservative Voices’

absolutely agree. nowhere is it expressed or implied that any person has a right to the service of another. which of course you would also tell a same sex couple looking for a wedding cake.

 

you can call this a free speech issue. you cannot call it a 1st amendment issue.

 

So the Republican/ Conservatives are claiming Jones as one of their own.

 

Where was your first amendment outrage when convicted child molestors were banned from Facebook?

 

Or a black person looking to buy a house.

 

one person on a message board.

 

of course. the same standard should be applied across the board if we are to be intellectually consistent. my desire to have what you have does not in any way obligate you to provide it to me.

 

Facebook will be replaced just like 8 tracks to cassettes, cassettes to cds, cds to bluetooth players. I mean I only use it to txt my friends when they are online, the rest is just pictures of what people are having for dinner and anti trump rhetoric. Its the 8track of social media now. Once people slowly replace their FB 8 tracks its over for them.

 

I dont care. Twitter, facebook, are all private companies. They owe jones and the right wingers who support him absolutely no loyalty.

 

I had an account but closed it fairly quickly.

People don't need to see me that personally.

If they want to they can come over and knock on my door.

 

Isn't "free speech' a part of the first amendment?

 

That's very different. That's a case where these predators could use interface technology to target children, kind of bypassing the whole sexual predator list in the first place(which I hold controversially, good or bad, depending on the sexual offense in nature.) If for example an 18 year old was screwing around with a 16 year old, I don't really think that's a sexual offense. Though that's an entirely different topic. Point is, FB had the lawful interest and necessity to close off that loophole for predators.

 

The duplicity lies in the fact that conservatives actually believe in free speech, whereas liberals believe only in their own free speech. This always puts conservatives at a disadvantage, considering most major media outlets are controlled by liberal mindsets, as Zuckerberg himself recently admitted regarding Facebook.

What we are dealing with is a liberal "monopoly" on the media; and a very dangerous monopoly at that; one that is more than willing to use its power to censor political free speech, primarily conservative free speech. That's why the government needs to intervene. Not to save free speech for liberals, who already have it; but for conservatives who are being denied its free speech access to liberal outlets.

 

of course, but you cannot use the terms interchangeably. there is the concept of free speech (which applies to this discussion), and there is the legal definition of free speech (which does not apply to this discussion). the 1st amendment only limits the authority of the state (as does the entire constitution with a few exceptions). it does not limit the authority of private parties to control content of their properties... that includes this forum we are communicating on right now, by the way.

 

How is that different from someone using an online platform to victimise a group of people? What Jones did in relation to Sandy Hook should have gotten him banned years ago.

I think it is funny how many right wingers will decry Facebook about this but at the same time defend the NRA assault upon the first amendment

 

Ask the NRA that question

https://www.newsweek.com/nra-backed-law-limiting-doctors-gun-speech-struck-down-557944

 

It wasn't "Liberals" backing the NRA s attempt to gag doctored with legislation

 

Why is it then that liberals don't think private bakers have authority to control access and content of their properties?

 

beats me. i guess you'll have to ask one.

 

Why is it that conservatives think that the NRA attempting to gag medical officers with legislation is OK?

 

well, doctors are licensed professionals. they are expert in human health. i'm not sure that qualifies them to talk to me about guns... any more than it would qualify an attorney to talk to me about eating too many potato chips. omg i do love my chips! or do you call them crisps?

 

When getting their education when do Doctors learn about gun safety?

 

Maybe Thorinc will chime in and give me an answer.

 

It is better to support taking land from Whites in South Africa and justifying 3 blacks torturing a white man with special needs for days like you have done?

 

I am sorry but I am really missing your point. I don't understand what makes these companies so different than any other businesses that sell services? You said "If no one ever signed up for Facebook, then Facebook would've never been a thing. The same for twitter and the same for these others." Isn't that true for any business that sells services and not physical goods. If you have a law or accounting practice and no one ever comes to you office for your services you would go out of business. If you made a movie and no one paid to see it you would lose money. They are failed businesses but they we still a private company that tried to deliver services albeit unsuccessfully. I am a computer programmer. If I was to spend a ton of time and resources developing an online game like WoW. I rent servers, hire technicians, customer support, HR, accountants etc... I launch my game and no one signs up for it. How would that be different than a Lawyer or a Doctor opening a practice and not getting clients. Is Netflix not a "privately-own" company because their business is online and the depend on accounts to exist? What about Blockbuster when it was still around? They are essentially the same type of business except one delivers its content electronically?