- 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: It appears that Zuckerberg lied to Congress
Posted on 4/11/18 at 10:50 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 4/11/18 at 10:50 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Should Congress fine FB up to $1 million per day for reducing traffic to a FB page
Congress can create a law to fine companies for many infractions, such as, discrimination. FB is discriminating against conservatives by falsely claiming conservatives are a "danger to the community".
FB is allowing real dangers to the community to go unimpeded.
..so yes, Congress could pass a law fining a company that discriminates against a certain group of people.
Aren't libs against discrimination?
2
Posted on 4/11/18 at 10:53 pm to djmicrobe
Do you know what an ex post facto law is?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 10:58 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Do you know what an ex post facto law is?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 10:58 pm to djmicrobe
You’re not typically under oath when you appear before Congress.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 11:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Under what law?
Under the first.
quote:
The government can't abridge free speech. Facebook is not the government.
Welcome to the new world.
quote:
“Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” reads Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion. “Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, particularly if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.”
The decision was unanimous.
quote:
Justice Kennedy acknowledges, is “one of the first cases the Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern internet.”
quote:
"The Supreme Court appropriately understood the importance of the internet to the way politics and free expression occur right now," says Neil Richards, a professor at Washington University Law School, who specializes in First Amendment law. "We cannot have a functioning First Amendment that doesn't take First Amendment activity in a digital context into account."
You might think that's a small case, but his opinion is what matters.
He applied the 1st to SOCIAL MEDIA and set the stage for people to use.
court case Packingham v. North Carolina
Because FB operates as a neutral public forum, 230 of the CDA comes into play. And Zuck was asked that.
quote:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
However, when you start to ban, censor you become the publisher. They have become the publisher.
There are many things that come to play. With FB in the light, we are going to see cases and regulations.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 11:43 pm to djmicrobe
You are so quick to say one side is lying over the other. You know nothing of what actually happened. Just speculation and rolling with it.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:30 am to Jjdoc
North Carolina statute made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages," impermissibly restricts lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment.
I agree that you nailed this one, as usual.
I agree that you nailed this one, as usual.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:42 am to matthew25
I quoted the SCOTUS. Ever seen a ruling based on the finding and words of the SCOTUS?
I gave you 230 of the CDA. They are no longer protected by that.
I gave you 230 of the CDA. They are no longer protected by that.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 12:47 am to Jjdoc
quote:
“Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,”
Two issues:
1. the word altogether
2. more importantly, this was regarding a case of the GOVERNMENT limiting access to social media
Pretty simple to distinguish the case from the fact pattern being discussed.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:15 am to LSURussian
quote:
Facebook is not the government.
That may certainly be in question...
DARPA and the CIA might disagree
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 1:16 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:21 am to djmicrobe
He wasn't sworn in
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:48 am to Jjdoc
Look, dumbass, that case was about the government forbidding certain people, like sex offenders, from accsessing social media. It wasn't about the social media provider limiting accsess by certain people.
You're so dumb you proved my point while thinking you were proving me wrong. You continue to reveal your ignorance.
You're so dumb you proved my point while thinking you were proving me wrong. You continue to reveal your ignorance.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:25 am to Jjdoc
Let me just quote the First Amendment to you, in pertinent part;
Think real hard and deep about why it is written about what Congress can not do, rather than what private entities can not do.
quote:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
Think real hard and deep about why it is written about what Congress can not do, rather than what private entities can not do.
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 5:26 am
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:31 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Because FB operates as a neutral public forum, 230 of the CDA comes into play. And Zuck was asked that.
Hopefully they lose this, their neutrality is in question with the actions they have taken with account closures, post blocking, and an employee termination.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:32 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Facebook made a business decision and the last time I checked private companies can do best by acting and removing risk factors.
It was a business decision to remove a page visited by millions of people without a specific reason for the removal? Sounds like a really smart business decision.
I guess you are right when you realize that their business is collecting data on everyone possible and promoting a specific agenda. So, yes, censoring a popular user because they dared speak out against the plantation was, in fact, a business decision.
You really mean that private companies can do what they want as long as they don't offend a protected class of the liberals, right? Surely, you don't mean that private companies can refuse services that go against their religious beliefs. That would be insane.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:33 am to djmicrobe
The leftists were holding him up as a great president hopeful.
I guess they will slink away and hope nobody remembers that, kind of like with Mark Cuban, who sure has shut his mouth lately, wonder why that is.
I guess they will slink away and hope nobody remembers that, kind of like with Mark Cuban, who sure has shut his mouth lately, wonder why that is.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:37 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
He wasn't under oath.
that doesn't mean that he can't lie
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:39 am to gthog61
quote:
The leftists were holding him up as a great president hopeful.
Where exactly do you get your pre picked out fake news
Posted on 4/12/18 at 5:45 am to olddawg26
We can solve this issue. Everyone just delete their CIA run FB account.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 7:02 am to gthog61
quote:
The leftists were holding him up as a great president hopeful.
I guess they will slink away and hope nobody remembers that, kind of like with Mark Cuban, who sure has shut his mouth lately, wonder why that is.
look how great Trump has done. imagine if we had a truly successful business man involved.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News