Facebook says Trump now suspended until at least January 2023

You say that when I just sourced the pattern of how much twitter put in notes on Donalds tweets.
My source stands. You're opinion is a joke.

 

Maybe, but I doubt the Bill of Rights could be adopted today.

 

What a curious thing to say. Which ones and why not?

 

As a package, if you tried to put all of the amendments of the Bill of Rights through the amendment process, they wouldn't get through because they don't represent the values of a super majority of the country.

 

Ah...because of the political polarization? But, the country was pretty polarized at the time the Constitution was written, between federalists and anti-federalists. The latter used the lack of a Bill of Rights as a reason not to ratify it. Madison, who initially thought one wasn't needed and should be in the state constitutions, agreed with anti-federalist leaders to make the first ten constitutional amendments a Bill of Rights, in order to secure ratification (he followed through with his promise and later changed his mind about its usefulness).

The anti-federalists were generally successful state politicians, who didn't want to see political power shifted to a central government, which the federalists thought essential to growth...similar to the globalist v. nationalists debate of today, but maybe a step down the ladder.

 

The 1st Amendment is NOT Absolute.

"You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater", etc.

And, you are 100% WRONG!

"Free speech" ISN'T being "surpressed".

They can say whatever thsy want WITHOUT Using FB.

They can use Parler, Post flyers on telephone poles, send smoke signals, Etc.

No one's Free Speech is being "surpressed". Period.

Sorry to see that your attempt at the "Free Speech argument" was an Epic FAIL.
Feel free to try again.

 

Nothing to do with my point but...Okay.

 

You do know that the case that comes from was overturned don't you?

 

Who cares?

Regardless:

The 1st Amendment is NOT absolute. Period.

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions. ... These actions would cause problems for other people, so restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner addresses a legitimate societal concern.

You're Welcome.

 

"Who cares" is a pretty good summary of the left's attitude towards the Bill of Rights these days.

 

So if I was a moderator on this platform, and I decided to ban you because I don't like your comments as they go against my political views, you wouldn't call that suppression of free speech?
You would be just fine with that because you can say it somewhere else?
You have a lot to learn.

 

NO! Not even close.

Just like PF has rules governing "acceptable content".

Sure. Of course.

Sorry. You have FAILED (Again)!

It is YOU who "have a lot to learn" if you don't understand how TOS agreements work.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to teach you.
I would suggest Google.

Best of luck on your search for knowledge.
Carry on.

 

It has nothing to do with TOS agreements. Sorry this is so far over your head.

 

What was your point?

 

Suppression of free speech

 

Can only be done by the government, as they are the only one that the first amendment applies to

 

Yeah, and so what?

They did at The TIME, and that is all that matters.

On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 amendments, thus giving the Bill of Rights the majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal

 

The person you are engaging keeps putting forward a FAILED "argument".

Obviously, in terms of "Free speech" (the First Amendment does NOT apply to FB, Twitter, etc.).
^Apparently (from what I have gathered) certain people Fail to Grasp that Fundamental Concept.

At this point, any further engagement is the equivalent of going back-and-forth with someone who insists that "2+2=5"

 

Like I said before, you should get out more.

SCOTUS Rulings

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
The Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was acceptable free speech or symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for a lawless action

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Flag burning as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
A criminal ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender was unconstitutional. The law violated the First Amendment because it punished speech based on the ideas expressed.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the school’s mission to discourage drug use

Supreme Court Sides With Students in Speech Zone Case
The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 on March 9, 2021 in favor of two former Georgia Gwinnett College students who sued the public institution over restrictive campus speech policies.


What planet did you come from?

 

Then you feel free to explain post #294 as only a fool would believe they have no protected free speech rights.

 

Example?

 

Example of what?

 

The suppression of free speech.

 

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
The Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was acceptable free speech or symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for a lawless action

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Flag burning as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)
A criminal ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender was unconstitutional. The law violated the First Amendment because it punished speech based on the ideas expressed.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the school’s mission to discourage drug use

Supreme Court Sides With Students in Speech Zone Case
The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 on March 9, 2021 in favor of two former Georgia Gwinnett College students who sued the public institution over restrictive campus speech policies.

 

OK...but those are decisions upholding free speech. There are decisions restricting free speech IF it can be proven that the intent of such speech was to incite crimes.