- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS: Public officials can be held liable for blocking critics on social media
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:55 pm to TigerAxeOK
Posted on 3/15/24 at 2:55 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
Government officials have the 1A right to say things as they wish in a public forum. So why shouldn't the public at large have the right to respond as they wish in the same public forum?
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention. They are not "public forums" in any way.
quote:
Violation of free speech is never ok. Even "hurtful" free speech, is still free speech. Silencing dissent is a tenet of Marxism, Communism, Etatism and Totalitarianism. This ruling was correct.
This isn't a free speech issue.
quote:
If you open your mouth, even in an online capacity, you have the right to be criticized and/or praised. Even if you keep your mouth shut, the 1A still leaves you open to criticism and praise. This is still America after all, for the time being.
This has nothing to do with the ruling. No regulation was in place to prevent anyone from responding via their own accounts
This post was edited on 3/15/24 at 2:57 pm
5
Posted on 3/15/24 at 7:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
For someone who harps on using precedents for his arguments, you sure don’t have a lot of regard for the precedents your arguments would set…
Posted on 3/15/24 at 10:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention. They are not "public forums" in any way.
Jack Dorsey said Twitter was a "digital public square." The CEO of one of the largest social media companies thinks his platform was a public forum.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 12:18 am to SlowFlowPro
That reasoning might apply if the private social media company banned or restricted speech but in these cases it is the government official banning users.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 5:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention. They are not "public forums" in any way.
This is like saying that if you go into a town square and use a megaphone to broadcast your message, that it's no longer public.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These are private companies and private networks and should be governed by their contracts not government intervention
They aren't regulating the platforms.
They are regulating government officials' use of the platforms. That's a pretty big difference.
If I use the U.S. Mail Service to commit a crime and I am arrested for it, the U.S. Mail Service isn't being regulated. I'm being arrested for using it to commit a crime.
This post was edited on 3/16/24 at 7:33 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News