I just quoted your own Constitution.
You’ll have to do better than that.
Parler is toast because it’s not a social media app, it’s a terrorist training camp.
We (meaning my country) send these types to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Assuming we don’t shoot them trying to enter the building.
Irish censorship laws suck
Funny. Ireland’s been relatively peaceful for how many decades now? And I don’t recall any major crackdowns on Irishpeoplez?
Meanwhile, in the United States…
Smartphones are not public utilities unless your government wishes to pay for and supply them to every citizen.
Just like back when people used a landline, you got to pick your own rotary phone to use.
You get to pick your own toilet and faucet,
Your own lamps…
I don’t get why this is confusing.
A better question would be, do you want your government to tell you what phone you have to use in order to access the network?
I vote No.
Mainly because stupid laws are ignored by the guards, and we export all our idiots to america
Those blasphemy articles were framed when the Catholic Church held great sway
Those times have passed
We’re talking about sedition and insurrection, Doof. Not blasphemy.
Keep up.
Capitalism is like this:
Have you been cooped up too long, just binge watching media?
Don’t you have any good books to read?
Well no. My smart phone is my private property. The data networks that they sell me access to were built by the government, not by them. When the infrastructure they use is provided by the government that is the definition of public utility.
Much like, my landline when I was in the US. I got to choose which company rented me my access to the Federally built communication network. AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon I believe were the choices.
The cell towers and 4g towers same thing. So yeah feels a lot like a public utility to me.
I understand, but the device you in which you want to use the network with, I think should also be your own choice.
Last i heard you can install apps on your phone outside of the app store.
Whatever the subject, be it sedition or blasphemy, society has more to lose when one side or another forbids discussion on taboo topics
The price we pay for this freedom is when citizens escalate taboo speech to illegal action
In this case legal action can be bought against those who incite or encourage as well a the perpetrators retroactively
Who would you choose to be Censor wabbit?
Fuck these guys[Edit for clarification: Fuck Parler].
Facebook, Microsoft and apple can ban whatever the fuck they want.
They are not utilities. They are companies providing a service that they can take away and change at any time.
It is up to the customers to decide what goods and services they want to use and private industry isn’t a democratic endeavor.
My shop is not democracy.
My parking lot is not a democracy.
My lobby is not a democracy.
Who I do business with is my choice. Fuck anybody who says differently.
If you want a utility use some open source Linux bullshit that nobody uses because it doesn’t have enough corporate development interest…
Edit: I got banned by eBay. I might complain about it but I don’t want the laws changed to force them to allow me to use their seller platform. I respect their 1st and 5th Amendment rights far too much to ever threaten their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to conduct commerce in the manner of their choosing.
Edit 2: spelling, typos, grammar, imretarded
Ok, that was really funny.
Surprise attack with Spinal Tap.
You’re alright now. you have passed my test and we can be friends.
I guess it depends on what you use Facebook, IG, or Parlor for. Personally, I would ne happy if they stopped all political talk on either platform. Which I why people move to IG, I think.
As it is right now, the perception of conservative Republicans is that Facebook is oppressing conservative speech. So they go to Parlor and now they have shut that down. Which means that if a conservative republican group makes and ap for their flavor of speech, it will be oppressed.
But they can always start a website or forum and post on there. But their perception is the oppression of free speech. And that if you are a social media platform that allows one side of the equation, you should allow the other.
The thing that is missing, is that they are not really doing this. They have banned Trump for his rhetoric that has caused violence and deaths of a few people. They have been banning people or Facebook jailing for inflammatory speech. Which is what both sides have been bitching at Facebook for recently. Policing their platform more and controlling the content so that things like Russian bots, criminal activities, suicides, bullying, and things like that are taken down.
Personally, I only go on Facebook to keep up with friends and family, and make some jokes. If they shut down all political bullshit, I would be fine with that. But really, if they would have banned Trump from Facebook and Twitter a couple years ago, he would probably have been re-elected. His mouth is his own worst enemy. I’ll be glad not to have to listen to it any more.
I guess as a lowly Canuck I shouldn’t discuss US law but my understanding is that the 1st Amendment applies only to the government. Private enterprises like Apple or Google can publish or not publish whatever they want.
This is an interesting related article discussing Hawley’s complaint that his 1st Amendment rights have been violated due to losing his book deal. They have not.
Pretty much. Many Americans misunderstand freedom of speech to mean that they should be able to say whatever they want through any medium, even if that medium is a private company’s service offering, without any consequences.
I generally use a series of analogies and examples whenever this comes up.
E.g.
You are free to protest for your beliefs or redress of grievances. However, I don’t have to provide or even sell you the markers and poster board to make your signs. I also don’t have to allow you to do it in my front lawn or my living room.
Not all speech is protected. For example, I cannot follow you around all day in public screaming at you that I am going to murder you. Also, you may expose yourself to civil liability if you make inaccurate allegations against someone. You may recall certain news outlets recently having to retract claims made about voting machines being used to facilitate voter fraud under threat of lawsuit.
My personal favorite though is this one. Go into your boss’ office and tell them that their spouse is ugly while pointing and laughing at the photos on their desk. It’s not illegal and you can’t be put in prison for it. Yet, do you think you’ll still be working there much longer?
That’s all fine as soon as they stop suckling from the Federal tit, and build their own infrastructure.
Facebook can censor whatever they want because I don’t need them to access a utility. They are a service offered through said utility.
Android and Apple OS are different in that I need them to access a public utility. Thus them arbitrarily blocking what service I can access through said utility becomes more problematic.
This same argument was essentially made in Reno V ACLU.
Everyone wants to censor the opposition in this age.
Reno vs ACLU was dealing with a very broad restriction across the internet in its entirety. People have multiple internet platforms available to express their opinion. Not a lawyer but it seems to me they are not at all the same situation.
