- 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: Federal Judge says Twitter is a PUBLIC FORUM....LOLOLOL
Posted on 8/6/18 at 9:50 pm to VOLhalla
Posted on 8/6/18 at 9:50 pm to VOLhalla
Well ya
Even though California is the government actor here, the US Constitution allows it (according to the Supremes). If not, it would have been overturned under the US Constitution, because clearly, California's Constitution allowed it.
So yes, a private enterprise can be a public forum subject to the 1st amendment rights of individuals.
Though, you only said "government" and didn't really parse which one. Under the federal, you don't have the implied right.
quote:
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
Even though California is the government actor here, the US Constitution allows it (according to the Supremes). If not, it would have been overturned under the US Constitution, because clearly, California's Constitution allowed it.
So yes, a private enterprise can be a public forum subject to the 1st amendment rights of individuals.
Though, you only said "government" and didn't really parse which one. Under the federal, you don't have the implied right.
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 10:09 pm
1
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:21 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Even though California is the government actor here, the US Constitution allows it (according to the Supremes). If not, it would have been overturned under the US Constitution, because clearly, California's Constitution allowed it.
So yes, a private enterprise can be a public forum subject to the 1st amendment rights of individuals.
Though, you only said "government" and didn't really parse which one. Under the federal, you don't have the implied right.
Californian Constitutional free speech protections have zero to do with this thread.
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:29 pm to VOLhalla
Twitter is headquartered in California
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:45 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Twitter is headquartered in California
Ok?
Your inability to understand that federal and state law are different is hilarious
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:50 pm to VOLhalla
I'm well aware this is a federal case. I'm also aware that the Bill of Rights was initially only a hedge against the federal government, until the incorpation cases of the 14th amendment, which have incorporated almost all the BoR except things like the 3rd, but that's off track.
You said:
I mentioned Pruneyard.
You then brought up the federal/state distinction, which was not present in your initial statement. In which I accounted for when discussing Pruneyard.
My mentioning of Twitter's HQ is more to discuss prospective future cases, as folks have sought to extend Pruneyard to the internet. The fact Twitter is HQ'd in the very same state as the Pruneyard holding makes it interesting to me at least.
Don't know why that's so "hilarious". Maybe we're talking past each other. In any event I don't foresee such people being successful in the near term.
You said:
quote:
Only if you don’t understand that the First Amendment applies to the government, not private entities
I mentioned Pruneyard.
You then brought up the federal/state distinction, which was not present in your initial statement. In which I accounted for when discussing Pruneyard.
My mentioning of Twitter's HQ is more to discuss prospective future cases, as folks have sought to extend Pruneyard to the internet. The fact Twitter is HQ'd in the very same state as the Pruneyard holding makes it interesting to me at least.
Don't know why that's so "hilarious". Maybe we're talking past each other. In any event I don't foresee such people being successful in the near term.
This post was edited on 8/6/18 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 8/6/18 at 10:50 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Your inability to understand interstate commerce is hilarious
Posted on 8/6/18 at 11:25 pm to CptBengal
I hope Alex Jones uses this judge’s precedent to sue Twitter for restricting his free speech on a public forum
Posted on 8/7/18 at 2:36 am to CptBengal
im not sure what every ones beef is with this decision we are all allowed to petition our government for a redress of our grievances why wouldn't this be the same as yelling at them at a news conference? they are free to ignore you as long as they don't remove you or act to cease your ability to continue, right? law enforcement would only be able to arrest you if you broke a law or in case of threat by words or action that caused or implied violence.
it goes to follow twitter would still be within its right to remove you if you broke their so called laws or terms of service because they are not a government entity and not bound to allow your 1st amendment rights. they could therefore remove anyone from their service if they so desire including government officials.
I am willing to concede that i'm not positive, because of the ruling how this would impact on the public vs private use of media that requires tv and radio to provide access to the public by government officials and if this would mean they couldn't be removed from twitter or facebook as a result.
it goes to follow twitter would still be within its right to remove you if you broke their so called laws or terms of service because they are not a government entity and not bound to allow your 1st amendment rights. they could therefore remove anyone from their service if they so desire including government officials.
I am willing to concede that i'm not positive, because of the ruling how this would impact on the public vs private use of media that requires tv and radio to provide access to the public by government officials and if this would mean they couldn't be removed from twitter or facebook as a result.
Page 7 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News