Reply With Quote
It functions as a public utility.
Because he's a public official. Twitter isn't a public official.
It functions as a public utility.
Is it a monopoly?
Is it an essential facility like a bridge or a sewer system?
The phrase "public utility" has considerable rhetorical appeal, but is harder to nail down than it looks.
https://www.mercatus.org/system/file...-Utilities.pdf
Show me where in the judge's ruling it says that.
A public utility company is an organization that maintains the infrastructure for a public service. Public utilities are subject to forms of public control and regulation ranging from local community-based groups to statewide government monopolies.
Effectively.
Right, coz the POTUS is a government official. Censorship works when it's the government, not the other way around. This was probably explained for a million times, but still apparently doesn't seem to sink in for some reason.
The word you're looking for is 'forum', as in 'public forum'.
Courts ruled that Twitter is a public forum, thus government officials can't apply censorship without running afoul of the 1st Amendment.
the irony of denouncing banning of any form from the same platform the alleged banning took place...
From the decision:
https://int.nyt.com/data/do enthel...ull.pdf#page=1We do not consider or decide whether an elected officialviolates the Cons ution by excluding persons from a wholly private social
media account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media
companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.
Page 4. Get your racist, melodramatic head out of the sand and read the rest of it. You might learn something.
like AOL, MySpace and LiveJournal.
.
Gotcha.
Like a freeway. If one is banned, he/she important access and abilities.
If you cannot post to YT, Twitter and FB, how does that harm you?
There are myriad social media platforms. Twitter and FB are utterly unlike the sewer system and the only bridge into town; they are replaceable, and over time probably will be, unlike physical infrastructure.
Nathan89 misread it.
wow...
Federalism in action, seems Chris isn't familiar with it.
It's not the states' job to enforce federal regulations or carry water for federal agencies.
wow...
Chris is pro anchor babies.
Chris is pro anchor babies.
illegals are bad
Dumb & dumber folks. ^
It's about Americans having to pay for baby murders. Illegal aliens murdering their babies at the expense of the United States citizen. Does that make sense now? (probably not)
I tried.
*cue emojis/hyperbole
But if that baby is born here and is, in fact, an American baby citizen, what then?
It's not a conflicting view. One can also be against birth right citizenship. Even if you aren't against birth right it's not conflicting though.
No. He can be for the value of their life and for sending them home.
The "blatantly conflicting" view is systematically killing them while crying about rights. Who does that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions