- 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
0
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:14 pm to xiv
quote:
Your argument won't work. Running a business is not a right protected by the First Amendment. You have to follow rules to run a business.
Running a business does not mean forfeiting the Bill of Rights, you know the first set of rules.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:17 pm to Kino74
quote:You’re so close....
Running a business does not mean forfeiting the Bill of Rights
If running a business in compliance with the law requires you to do something that goes against your religious beliefs, it’s against your religion to run a business. The good news is that you are free to worship as you please and not run a business.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:24 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
ut when that “business” becomes a defacto Political advocacy group that relies on publicly owned utilities to deliver its propaganda , then We have to have a different conversation.
Oh. We are pretending that no conservatives are on Facebook. Lol
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:25 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
We have already had such laws under the fairness doctrine of the FCC.
When did the FCC get authority to expand the fairness doctrine to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies???
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:26 pm to ProbyOne
quote:
Because they have the desire and ability to control elections.
Obviously.
Except there are still conservatives on Facebook. And conservative ads.
Fail.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:29 pm to Kino74
quote:
Running a business does not mean forfeiting the Bill of Rights, you know the first set of rules.
Correct as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Honby Lobby.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:31 pm to xiv
quote:
If running a business in compliance with the law requires you to do something that goes against your religious beliefs, it’s against your religion to run a business.
That is the dumbest thing yet today you've said. A conscientious objector can not be forced to fight if drafted. By your "logic" it must be against their religion to live in America.
I hope you're just a troll and not truly believe the nonsense you have spouted.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:33 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Why? Do you think Facebook would have the same audience it has today if it banned all conservatives??
Eventually no but it would take a long time to build another social network with the reach and power of Facebook. Even worse if the other tech companies were involved in the suppression as well.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:41 pm to Kino74
quote:When you say this, you’re making a bad point. Every time.
By your "logic"
quote:Nothing to do with what you’re talking about.
A conscientious objector
If the law says your business can’t discriminate against gays, then your business can’t discriminate against gays. If running a business that treats gays equally is against your religion, then running a business is against your religion. It isn’t the rest of the world’s job to make this work for you.
Worship as you please; run your business the way the law says.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:55 pm to xiv
quote:
If the law says your business can’t discriminate against gays, then your business can’t discriminate against gays.
The examples of the bakers used, the bakers didn't refuse because the customers were gay, they were refused for wanting a wedding cake for gay marriage. Huge difference which you apparently either ignore or can't grasp.
quote:
If running a business that treats gays equally is against your religion, then running a business is against your religion.
You're "if A equals this, then B equals this" argument you keep making shows your lack of understanding what the argument is and leads to your argument as nonsensical at best.
quote:
It isn’t the rest of the world’s job to make this work for you.
It isn't the rest of the world to force an individual to lose their God given rights particularly the very first freedom they have.
quote:
Worship as you please; run your business the way the law says.
The law forbids infringing on a persons constitutional right. A law that does so is unconstitutional.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:55 pm to FlexDawg
Once you become a public communication tool then there is no protection for "private company" Radio and TV stations are regulated to hell and back as are the phone companies.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 6:57 pm to Kino74
quote:
The examples of the bakers used, the bakers didn't refuse because the customers were gay, they were refused for wanting a wedding cake for gay marriage.
And while it wasn’t an answer to the ultimate question, i note that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:02 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
Once you become a public communication tool then there is no protection for "private company" Radio and TV stations are regulated to hell and back as are the phone companies.
Honest question here. How would social media companies be categorized then? Aren't they more like newspapers than than TV or Radio?
Can anyone explain Miami Herald v Tornillo to me? It seems relevant to the social media companies censoring people, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it would apply.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:10 pm to Kino74
quote:I ignore it; the law in their business’ state does not permit the type of discrimination they committed.
Huge difference which you apparently either ignore or can't grasp.
quote:However you feel about it, prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gays in the way the bakers did is not a first amendment violation. I’ve read the entire case; sounds like you haven’t, no disrespect.
You're "if A equals this, then B equals this" argument you keep making shows your lack of understanding what the argument is and leads to your argument as nonsensical at best.
quote:This attempt to conflate religion and business in your particular manner won’t work, no matter how many times you try.
It isn't the rest of the world to force an individual to lose their God given rights particularly the very first freedom they have
quote:See previous sentence.
The law forbids infringing on a persons constitutional right. A law that does so is unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 5/5/19 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:11 pm to crazy4lsu
Unless the government can prove the social media companies are violating the anti-trust act, I doubt they can force content. That is a very uphill battle.
The clear issue, to me, is that these companies begged for and were granted civil immunity for posts on their platforms because they said it would be impossible to police them. Clearly that isn’t true. These companies are exposing themselves to liability for damages caused/incited by posts on their platforms IMO.
The clear issue, to me, is that these companies begged for and were granted civil immunity for posts on their platforms because they said it would be impossible to police them. Clearly that isn’t true. These companies are exposing themselves to liability for damages caused/incited by posts on their platforms IMO.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:12 pm to FlexDawg
He's at the top of my favorites to listen to. He supported Bernie, and still would. Still, he manages to REPORT impartially and make razor sharp commentary.
If y'all don't know him and you want to know what real news could feel like if we had honest principles reporters... even when they do not line up with your political AGENDAS AT ALL, well that's what he is.
We all should demand better news medias.
If y'all don't know him and you want to know what real news could feel like if we had honest principles reporters... even when they do not line up with your political AGENDAS AT ALL, well that's what he is.
We all should demand better news medias.
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:18 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The clear issue, to me, is that these companies begged for and were granted civil immunity for posts on their platforms because they said it would be impossible to police them. Clearly that isn’t true.
Is there a meaningful difference, in a legal sense, between policing some content, like certain notable people, and policing all the content? The latter seems a massive task, given how much content is produced daily.
quote:
These companies are exposing themselves to liability for damages caused/incited by posts on their platforms IMO.
Wouldn't this reality make them more likely to censor people?
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:28 pm to Gr8t8s
Just like he argued on behalf of bakers, florists and photographers, right?
Posted on 5/5/19 at 7:28 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Is there a meaningful difference, in a legal sense, between policing some content, like certain notable people, and policing all the content? The latter seems a massive task, given how much content is produced dail
Not a ton of case law on it. If I recall Roomates.com lost a case because they required a questionnaire and the court ruled that was discriminatory and negated their immunity. I guess it depends if the tech companies are being discriminatory.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News