Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

No. It is. Not exactly. Yes. Indeed.

 

Private companies can't destroy the constitution. They can do illegal things and get litigated and charged, but they can't destroy the constitution.
As that applies to the gov't.
INCREDIBLY chilling to see tRUMPer not knowing that.

 

JamesEvans and dairyair are right, and a Trumper is wrong.

 

Lol.

Been there, done that.

Hence the information in my posts is irrefutably correct.

You, on the other hand, clearly need to start from scratch, with the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

 

Antiduopolist is post Bill of Rights, clennan, is what he is saying.

 

, not yelling, JakeStarkey, but you simply do not understand our law on this.

Best wishes should you ever choose to explore and better grasp it.

 

If run by liberals (closet conservatives) especially, they can ignore, erode and destroy its enumerated rights, as is occurring now. Yes and yes and yes and see my first sentence.
Wha'?
Incredibly ridiculous that you think I'm a Trumper.

 

No and no and what Trumper?

 

Lolalas.

Maybe go again & try harder? The Google is strong!

Alas, no.

I, on the other hand, encourage you to start from scratch, and examine the law.

 

Are we actually getting somewhere?

Indeed I am speaking of subsequent legal interpretation regarding speech rights in privately owned public space.

I'm sure this is just a fluke, but what a happy moment that someone seems to grasp some relevant aspect of this.

Free speech must be honored in the New Public Square.

 

I'm well aware that you're referring to what you perceive as rulings supporting your position.

Closer analysis - by you - of the actual rulings (in particular, their application of forum doctrines) will show that, in actual fact, they don't.

 

Yep - and has misinterpreted post-Bill interpretations.

 

I don't think you are...

They do.

INCREDIBLY chilling that you champion destruction of so foundational a right.

 

No; your studies are woefully incomplete.

Chilling.

 

No need to be chilled - your fear is unfounded.

 

The willful ignorance and malice driving the destruction of the initially enumerated Right of The People is chilling indeed.

 

Ahh yes...loss of freedom of speech...did I see a thread about that somewhere...

 

Like it or not, private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. Some limited (narrow) exceptions exist in a few states, by virtue of the fact that their state Constitution provides heightened - affirmative - free speech rights. Additionally, private entities have First Amendment rights too.

Stating this reality is not indicative of ignorance or malice. It's a statement of fact.

What concerns you (I believe) is the scale of social media platforms which, in your opinion, elevates them to modern-day public squares subject to the First Amendment. It doesn't - they are nonetheless private.

If they wanted to, they could remodel themselves as right-wing platforms, or left-wing platforms, or charge fees to participate, or close down altogether. As profit-orientated businesses, it's unlikely.

What's more, by what mechanism could Twitter, Facebook et al possibly be designated public fora, and by whom? The First Amendment provides no grounds for doing so. Are you suggesting that government should have the right to do so, thus violating the First Amendment?

Accepting this reality, what concerns me far more - and for better reason - is the repeal of net neutrality, enabling ISPs to manipulate and control people's access to the internet in the first place, including the potential to favor certain (more profitable) sites with certain leanings over others, and stifle smaller platforms enabling the expression of particular and perhaps marginal points of view.

Personally, I think that's far more sinister than a private entity (which has every interest in maintaining an appearance of balance, at least) exercising it's own First Amendment rights by banning or not banning certain people.

 

What if someone said, "I'm not anti-Muslim, I'm anti-termite?" Would you see this in the exact same way as Farrakhan's tweet?

Do you consider "personal attacks" as more significant than attacks on groups?

But it is NOT your personal belief that Farrakhan intended to insult and offend?

So you think that everyone at Twitter has the EXACT SAME "subconscious bias?"

Do you think that I said "I would LITERALLY need to smack you in the face?" I said IT would, as in the evidence.

 

Who in this thread has said that Twitter doesn't have the RIGHT to ban anyone?

 

Well there was never free speech on Twitter of course.

 

They are in certain circumstances. Numerous exceptions exist in numerous places. Yes.

It is ignorance, and to some extent, and in some circumstances, driven by malice toward foundational constitutional rights. It is not.

Yes. It does, though they are.

They ARE right wing (conservative) platforms, but they must honor free speech nonetheless. Yet they are conservative nonetheless.

They ARE such; it is self-evident. The courts have ruled repeatedly on the encompassing issue.

Not reality, but I'm glad you have the concern you express about NN.

It is sinister, but the courts have been clear on the issue of free speech rights in public spaces, including those in privately owned areas.

 

Me.

They do not have this right.

 

Under what section of US Code?