Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[NosPortatArma]

Good, that means violent extremists don't get airtime. I'm struggling to see why you don't consider this a detriment.

Not after public media was abused to undermine society and promote violence and terrorism.

So you just dont want free speech. perfectly legitimate view. lets just agree to disagree on that.

[Heathen Hammer]

They could never be designated as a public forum. Already a legal definition for public forums in the US and none of these companies fit the definition.

There is nothing wrong with defining youtube or facebook as public forum. The loss of their "right" to deny someone platform based on superficial reasons is a necessary sacrifice that will be made to ensure that society's ability to exchange ideas isn't inhibited.

[mongrel]

Yes there is. Their duty is to shareholders .It is they who should profit from social media, not racist dweebs.

[Vanoi]

There is nothing wrong with defining youtube or facebook as public forum. The loss of their "right" to deny someone platform based on superficial reasons is a necessary sacrifice that will be made to ensure that society's ability to exchange ideas isn't inhibited.

We've been over this. Supreme Coirt determined what public forums are decades ago. Private companies can't be made into public forums.

so broaden the definition.

Isn't possible. Supreme Court determined this issue long ago. Private companies can never be public forums.

I really don't you understand at all the definition of a public forum in the US.

[Cope]

We've been over this. Supreme Coirt determined what public forums are decades ago. Private companies can't be made into public forums.

Except when it suits liberals, of course.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trum...udge-says.html

[Vanoi]

Except when it suits liberals, of course.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/trum...udge-says.html

You know that doesn't change my point right? Twitter can still ban you. Trump because he uses Twitter in an official capacity cannot for the moment. This issue needs to be taken to the Supreme Court.

[NosPortatArma]

Isn't possible. Supreme Court determined this issue long ago. Private companies can never be public forums.

I really don't you understand at all the definition of a public forum in the US.

courts interpret laws. im talking about making new laws.

[Cope]

You know that doesn't change my point right? Twitter can still ban you. Trump because he uses Twitter in an official capacity cannot for the moment. This issue needs to be taken to the Supreme Court.

We know that evidence doesn't change your nonsensical arguments.

[Vanoi]

courts interpret laws. im talking about making new laws.

I'm talking legal precedent. Its been set. New laws would violate it and be struck down and even current public forums can still restrict speech and content anyways.

New laws have to ve Constitutional. I don't think you understand this concept.

We know that evidence doesn't change your nonsensical arguments.

What evisence? Its clear you didn't read your own source.

This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States,” Buchwald said said in her opinion.

It doesn't once say Twitter can't ban people or deny them service. I'm sure you don't even know what a public forum is.

[Heathen Hammer]

We've been over this. Supreme Coirt determined what public forums are decades ago. Private companies can't be made into public forums.

As technology moves on, so do laws. Having popular social media defined as public forum is actually best case scenario for big tech, given how the other option is anti-trust legislature.

[Cope]

What evisence? Its clear you didn't read your own source.

It doesn't once say Twitter can't ban people or deny them service. I'm sure you don't even know what a public forum is.

You explicitly stated that "private companies can never be public forums" because it was legally "impossible". This claim is plainly and unequivocally contradicted by a federal ruling which classified Twitter as a "designated public forum". Of course once your drivel was exposed (again) you predictably reverted to blind denialism.

[mongrel]

You explicitly stated that "private companies can never be public forums" because it was legally "impossible". This claim is plainly and unequivocally contradicted by a federal ruling which classified Twitter is a "designated public forum". Of course once your drivel was exposed (again) you predictably reverted to blind denialism.

Still not obliged to offer jihadis and nazis a living, no firm is.

[NosPortatArma]

I'm talking legal precedent. Its been set. New laws would violate it and be struck down and even current public forums can still restrict speech and content anyways.

New laws have to ve Constitutional. I don't think you understand this concept..

why do you seem to think its impossible? literally anything can be made into law eventually if the people want it. change the constitution then if you have to, but i dont think thats needed anyways.

[Vanoi]

You explicitly stated that "private companies can never be public forums" because it was legally "impossible". This claim is plainly and unequivocally contradicted by a federal ruling which classified Twitter is a "designated public forum". Of course once your drivel was exposed (again) you predictably reverted to blind denialism.

Did you read the federal judge's actual order? They included in your source. It does not once say Twitter is a public forum.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. We conclude that we have jurisdiction to entertain this dispute. Plaintiffs have established legal injuries that are traceable to the conduct of the President and Daniel Scavino and, despite defendants’ suggestions to the contrary, their injuries are redressable by a favorable judicial declaration. Plaintiffs lack standing, however, to sue Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is dismissed as a defendant. Hope Hicks is also dismissed as a defendant, in light of her resignation as White House Communications Director. Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis under the Supreme Court’s forum doctrines, and is properly characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the President’s personal First Amendment interests. In sum, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 34 and 42. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Naomi

So you didn't read the source did you? Typical poor debating from you.

As technology moves on, so do laws. Having popular social media defined as public forum is actually best case scenario for big tech, given how the other option is anti-trust legislature.

Public forums can still restict content and speech you do know that right? You can't force them to become public. It would violate legal precedent anyways. Anti-trust won't help you either.

why do you seem to think its impossible? literally anything can be made into law eventually if the people want it. change the constitution then if you have to, but i dont think thats needed anyways.

It would be needed and changing the Constitution is very hard. You can't violate legal precedent nor Constitutional law here.

[Cope]

Did you read the federal judge's actual order? They included in your source. It does not once say Twitter is a public forum.

So you didn't read the source did you? Typical poor debating from you.

Denying reality once again.

[Vanoi]

Oops.



Denying reality once again.

So now you are going to ignore an actual judge's order because i proved you wrong? Same poor debating from you.

The Judge's order says differently. And its the actual legal order. It trumps your quote which is referring to Donald Trump's twitter account not Twitter itself.

I knew you didn't bother to actually read your source. Second time now you got beat by your own source. Keep it up.

[Heathen Hammer]

Public forums can still restict content and speech you do know that right? You can't force them to become public. It would violate legal precedent anyways. Anti-trust won't help you either.

Epic already debunked this in the above point. I'll just add that break-up of big tech will most certainly help the case. As I said, just losing "right" to control speech on the Internet is the less of two evils that will face big tech.

[Aexodus]

Denying reality once again.

Now that, that is interesting. Not just Trump’s account, but the whole platform is a designated public forum.

[Vanoi]

Epic already debunked this in the above point

Except the judge's order doesn't say that at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foru...)#Public_forum

Use can be restricted based on content, however, if the restriction passes a strict scrutiny test for a traditional and designated forum or the reasonableness test for a limited forum. Also, public forums can be restricted as to the time, place and manner of speech.

Proving you wrong is so so easy.

I'll just add that break-up of big tech will most certainly help the case. As I said, just losing "right" to control speech on the Internet is the less of two evils that will face big tech.

Breaking them up won't stop you from getting banned. They will still be able to do that and deny you service.

Now that, that is interesting. Not just Trump’s account, but the whole platform is a designated public forum.

Except the judge's order does not say that.

[Infidel144]

Now that, that is interesting. Not just Trump’s account, but the whole platform is a designated public forum.

No, it is just the 'interactive space' of Trump's personal account.