• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

Facebook may not arbitrarily silence free speech.

1. not silencing speech, they had their chance to play by the rules, they failed to do so and thus they are banned.

2. they are not bound to provide free speech, they are a business totally nothing to do with the government so they have no need to comply with the first amendment.
 
Correct; incorrect. Not arbitrarily for exercise of free speech. Irrelevant. Ditto. Ditto.

Irrelevant. Patience, grasshopper - the lawsuits are coming. :)

The lawsuits will bring nothing because they have no leg to stand on and neither have you. And no matter how many times you posts nonsense and "incorrect" it is and remains absolutely zero.
 
Reading the thread would be a good way to take a stab at understanding the issues. :)

Except you do not understand the issue and ignore any evidence and facts time and time again. So no, you start reading the law/present evidence for your claim but you provide none so far.
 
Unconstitutional/arbitrary.

Facebook is not the government, it is a private company with rules and regulations. They cannot help it that idiots violate them. Hence the got booted and it is not unconstitutional.
 
The Supremes gonna hafta step in... :)

Except they are not going to have to step in. It is not one of the issues they get to decide about. Facebook is not the government nor does Facebook have to provide free speech. If you think differently provide us with evidence in the form of rulings of the supreme court.
 
Correct; incorrect.

Nope, private corporations do not have to ignore their own rules to placate bull crap peddlers and rule breakers. Facebook has no duty to provide unfettered free speech.
 
Read the thread. :)

Read the law and understand your nonsensical claims about constitutionality do not change the facts of the matter, Facebook is not an agent of the state and is not bound by the first amendment.
 
The law of the land holds sway. It depends.

Nope, it does not depend because Facebook is not a state agent or a part of the state. It is not bound by the first amendment.
 
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?




Well, they are certainly free to do as they please. But, these social media giants are definitely gatekeepers to information in this day & age. I'm of the belief that when you start banning people it's against the principle of Free Speech. I say let them stay. Let them stay and let the fake news stay too. I'd rather have an atmosphere on Facebook that was Wild Wild West style. Here's a ton of information and then you the user have to sift through what is verifiable and accurate and what is fake news.

"promoting hate speech and violence" sounds like a copout for getting away with an easy ban of despised public figures. I don't agree with censoring hate speech, I tend to agree the KKK can say what they damn well please, but, the left will be there to push back on their hatred. Promoting violence is a legitimate reason for banning an account. Facebook needs to establish some guidelines for what constitutes promoting violence on Facebook. I can't see the rantings of Alex Jones where he says faux-patriotic things like "Don't Tread on my freedoms bro or we're coming for you" as rising to the legal level of a "Imminent lawless action".

Given that's the government's standard for protected and unprotected speech, shouldn't it be Facebook's as well? Or, should it not?

Bakers have a right not to bake a cake, and Facebook has a right not to host a page.


I think that mirroring First Amendment protections (and limits) would be a wise choice for social media platforms to follow, but if Twitter wants to turn itself into a left-wing echo-chamber, it has the ability and right to do so.
 
Bakers have a right not to bake a cake, and Facebook has a right not to host a page.


I think that mirroring First Amendment protections (and limits) would be a wise choice for social media platforms to follow, but if Twitter wants to turn itself into a left-wing echo-chamber, it has the ability and right to do so.

The baker stuff has a whole different law that is in play, it is the public accommodation law and it can be that a baker has to bake a cake due to that law. But a lot of those laws are state laws, not federal laws.

Facebook however is under no obligation to allow unfettered free speech.
 
For those who ignore the law and reality (and it is stupid to have to state this as a Dutch person who only loves US politics as a hobby), here is the crux of the matter:

The text of the first amendment is:

“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.”

Congress can make no laws abridging freedom of speech, the law does not say that private businesses have to live up to that rule. Just congress/the government.

And for that matter all the nonsense of "we will take it to the justices" is nonsense. The Supreme court is not going to redefine the first amendment to include private businesses. That is nonsensical to the maximum.
 
Back
Top Bottom