The 1st Amendment is being torn apart by hypocrisy...

So, it's okay for a PRIVATE company to not be beholden to the first amendment by shutting out free speech. Several companies have been doing this against Trump and other private citizens and their rights to express their opinions. Democrat fascists say this is perfectly fine because of one reason and one reason only, those companies are PRIVATE companies. Even though they are regulated by the Federal Government.

Now, if Democrat fascists are correct, then the couple that owned that bakery who based on their freedom of religion, which is a right in the Constitution, were forced to support the gay couple's marriage even thought it went against their rights as PRIVATE citizens and company to not allow their business to be involved with homosexual behavior.

Twitter and the bakery are both PRIVATE companies. Both exercised a right in the 1st Amendment. Yet, the bakery is forced to go against their rights and Twitter is not. If the bakery owners were forced to give up their rights to deny homosexuals, then Twitter should be forced to give up their rights to deny Trump and all conservative individuals and companies. The same with every other hypocritical fascist company supporting Democrat fascism.

 

Liberals always have first class rights, conservatives are always second class citizens. We've been getting reamed by the big media since forever.

 

Ridiculous nonsense.

 

Leftists are just saying, well, find your own app or internet. Whoops. Leftists are taking those away too.

Now compare that to simple words on a cake. Remember they could have bought the wedding cake. Just not decorated to acknowledge a gay wedding. But it was a setup from the beginning.

The hypocrisy runs deep with Leftists. The Totalitarian regime is at our doorstep.

 

The First Amendment has NEVER regulated a private property owner's right to regulate speech ON their property. Please actually read it if you are going to post about it.

"Conservatives" are using this fake version of the first amendment to try to challenge actual First Amendment rights and private property rights. Sorry, but you guys are the ones being the actual authoritarians here.

 

In the case of the bakery, religion is a class that enjoys protection from those refusing to provide goods, services, housing, or employment based on religious beliefs. Using that status to deny others based on their beliefs created a double standard that makes a "preferred citizen".

Twitter did not suspend Hillary's account when she said the election was stolen or that Trump was an illegitimate president. The "death to America/Israel" guy was not silenced. Those with no R by their name are "preferred citizens"

Once power is achieved, it is abused.

For me, there are only 2 possible solutions:

1. All beliefs get equal protection.
2. No belief gets any protection.

 

Uhmmm... have you ever even read the First Amendment? Clearly not. But that's where you should have started.

 

Equal protection under the law =/= equal results on social media or any other privately owned platform

 

Here is what conservatives are using, the fact that these companies act under government protection with their 230 status. That enables the to band together and in concert eliminate their competition and if they have that protection they cannot act as an editorial company. The answer in a free market private company economy is don't like them use someone else. But here with their protection they use their power to quelch any other platform that does not comply with THERE demands. So while a private censor it still has government involvement. So end that by revoking the 230 status and then the FTC can investigate for monopolistic activity and conspiracy.

 

Did the bakery have protection from the government from lawsuits? Did the bakery conspire with the flour supplier and the sugar supplier to deny other bakers the flour and sugar they need in order to put them out of business?

I don't think your analogy is going to work out too well here.

 

I'm familiar with the fringe pet theories regarding 230. Revoking 230 would result in far, far more restrictions of speech.

 

That so? Why don't we ask PARLER for an opinion? The hypocrisy of the Left is inescapable. It isn't enough that they censor and ignore free speech, they also act to remove that right with other methods than simple censorship on THEIR monopolistic platforms. It will take a while but eventually, those on the Right will be able to push through that hypocrisy and be heard. Unless, of course, the Marxists in DC gain such a hold that speech by anyone but themselves is labeled as hate and is verboten.

Yes, it WOULD. But it would sanction BOTH ideologies more equally. OR, the Data Barons could simply go back to allowing true free speech with restrictions ONLY in the case of those who advocate for violence. That's the most equitable solution but we know THAT is not going to happen voluntarily. Zuck and Dorsey are straight-up shutting down the free speech of those they disagree with, politically. Fortunately, we still have the freedom to ignore sycophants that think things are just DANDY as they are today.

 

You ask Parler. I'm not into whackadoodle bizarre sheist.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

The above is the 1st amendment. Twitter is within their rights to ban the sh*theads they've banned, Amazon, Apple & Google are acting within their rights and Parler can go pound salt. If people want to challenge this, go ahead, that's what courts are for.

 

I agree, but I believe the other poster was taking a more holistic position.

 

It's not a theory it is in practice and so say the companies that want government protection while they conspire together to prevent opposition political speech with their monopolistic and anti-trust acts.

 

Can't the three conspirators with there government protection was able to shut them down. Well to a third world free press.

 

Watch those facts. Apparently, facts can be very confusing. And confounding, also apparently.

 

Hello - the Bakery won their case in court. You be confused and angry. Back away from the keyboard.

 

And let objective reality win? Never!

 

SCOTUS said he didn't have to bake the cake, so I'm not sure what the issue is.

******y people trying to push the limits are ******y.

I know lots of gay people; none of them want a wedding cake baked by someone who disapproves of them.

 

In practice where? I would love to see a case in which this has been established, can you cite it?

 

Should private companies be allowed to choose their customers?

Yes or no?

 

Think of it this way. The right wing fascists could have bought the website as long as they did not host ideas to commit treason. Since they wanted to host these ideas they must find a “bakery” that is ok with putting that language on their “cake”.

Maybe they should make their own ISP since they are not wanted on the mainstream ones. Why stop there, why not form their own country like they did with the confederacy — I wouldn’t recommend civil war and theft of our lands but there are several nations that are already set up to be fascist no government dictatorships they might enjoy.

 

The Bakery has government protection from being FORCED to put words on their cake that they do not want to put there.
The private internet companies have government protection from being FORCED to host words that might
harm the future business prospects of that company. Forcing an internet company to associate with asshats, makes
the advertisers who support said internet company, interferes with the business prospects of that company.