If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
And this should go without saying, but the problem with Twitter/Parler/etc is that they are private actors. They aren't otherwise subject to the 1st A. However, they are functioning in an important public discourse role. This is a way around that.
I disagree. The Supreme Court has long held that the government may not induce private companies to do that which is unconstitutional for the government to do.
Think of the Ambassador Bridge, a privately owned bridge. Its owners have been granted liability protection and other inducements by the government (s) to induce them to build and maintain the bridge. The Ambassador Bridge Company cannot suddenly stop Canadian citizens from using the bridge just because the US and Canada are in a trade dispute. There is an implied contract and detrimental reliance.
Further, what the Tech Giants did to Parler is a classic violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, acting in unison, de-platformed Parler BECAUSE it was the # 1 app at the Apple App Store and some of the 88 million followers of Pres. Trump on Twitter were moving to a competing app that had offered an open internet. I suppose it turns on the "terms of service" agreement, but some Dem censors working for Facebook or Twitter cannot unilaterally change from #openInternet to "controlled publisher". Nor can they ban Parlor for some transgressions they assume MAY happen in the future (e.g. President Trump expressing his opinions).
Anyone here want to take the position that Apple, Alphabet (Google), Twitter, and Facebook, acting in unison, are not a "combination in restraint of trade" in their actions toward Parler?
Last edited by Da Geezer; January 13, 2021, 04:38 PM.
232 yea-197 nay (5 NV). 1 D didn’t vote and 4 R’s didn’t.
10 Republicans voted “yea”.
For “incitement of insurrection”.
Most know I am not a republican. I’m a fiscal conservative and a pro 2ndA social liberal. I never liked Trump. Twitter may have helped to get him elected but I think it caused him much more net harm. Anyway. I read what he wrote. If that is inciting an insurrection, then Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of others are in danger.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
232 yea-197 nay (5 NV). 1 D didn’t vote and 4 R’s didn’t.
10 Republicans voted “yea”.
For “incitement of insurrection”.
Most know I am not a republican. I’m a fiscal conservative and a pro 2ndA social liberal. I never liked Trump. Twitter may have helped to get him elected but I think it caused him much more net harm. Anyway. I read what he wrote. If that is inciting an insurrection, then Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of others are in danger.
Shit like this is why in 2008 I switched to the Libertarian Party...fuck both parties...in reality we have a one party system...
but from a practical viewpoint how can you charge somebody with inciting a riot if it started 40 minutes before you finished your speech and 45 minutes away from where you are to boot
His issue from middle america is he didnt do anything immediatelly to stop it at least not enough
Last edited by crashcourse; January 13, 2021, 04:46 PM.
I disagree. The Supreme Court has long held that the government may not induce private companies to do that which is unconstitutional for the government to do.
232 yea-197 nay (5 NV). 1 D didn’t vote and 4 R’s didn’t.
10 Republicans voted “yea”.
For “incitement of insurrection”.
Most know I am not a republican. I’m a fiscal conservative and a pro 2ndA social liberal. I never liked Trump. Twitter may have helped to get him elected but I think it caused him much more net harm. Anyway. I read what he wrote. If that is inciting an insurrection, then Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of others are in danger.
Yeah, we're really into pretty terrible precedent areas.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Comment