State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"

[Rate This]

Tell the businesses in Ann Arbor they are right wing, including the Jim Toy LGBT Center. Love ya man but c'mon.

Jim Toy is a not for profit. I'm not suggesting the politics of all business people are right wing, but the business fundamentals need to be if the business is going to stay around.

But most folks on the left are capitalists... they simply want more regulation than conservatives do. Most people on the right are capitalists too but not all.

[TC Shuts Up]

Youtube keeps taking the video down. Since the threat is a direct one, and it's clear that her meaning is to try to incite violence against Trump supporters, it falls into the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exemption from the First Amendment protection.

Note to failing Constitutional Law 101 students:

The First Amendment is not "separation of church and state", it is about FREE SPEECH, and no SPECIFIC religion being a STATE RELIGION.

[TC Shuts Up]

Notice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!

[Deleted User 14896]

Notice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!

So here's the question:

Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.

Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?

[Rate This]

Notice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!

So here's the question:

Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.

Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?

No... the first amendment does not apply to them or any other business.

[MWmetalhead]

There are plenty of proponents of free enterprise who endorse governmental involvement in certain areas of public life.

Free enterprise basically means private parties are free to engage in commerce and form & own equity in commercial ventures. The means of production, logistics, managerial authority and ownership isn't controlled or held by the government.

Technically, one can be a proponent of free enterprise and still be supportive of law enforcement rollbacks, support abortion rights, support restrictive trade policies with foreign nations, support firearms restrictions, support robust subsidization of public education, support rigid environmental regulations, etc.

Free enterprise simply is a subset of general liberty.

[Deleted User 14896]

Notice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!

So here's the question:

Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.

Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?

No... the first amendment does not apply to them or any other business.

So here's the First Amendment:

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.

Am I higher than the cost of living thinking this backs up what I'm saying? This says the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech. It don't say private business can't. A place of business can ask you to leave if they want, for having a foul mouth, for anything you may say. You could talk about a Ford Focus, and if the owner has had a bad experience with a Ford Focus, he can ask you to leave. Walmart does not allow people to open carry in the store. There is no law saying we can't do that. But it's their store. They can do whatever they want. They are a private business.

I'm still not convinced that Facebook and the others can't, for any reason they choose, restrict what is posted to their website. It's their website. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State of New York. It's not a public utility.

Depending on what news organization it may be, they are all slanted to the right or to the left. Does anyone file a lawsuit what a media outlet chooses what to run and not run? Look at the fringe links that we see all the time on here. Any regulators seeking to shut them down because they don't tell the other side of the story? No. It's free speech.

Am I using my head for self proctology here? Feel free to say so.

[audiophile]

No, I wouldn't say that!

However section 230 protects web providers from litigation for liable only if they remain neutral. There is an exception for indecent or profane content, but no exception for political content.

Facebook basically is playing with fire, and could be sued for liable because they are essentially making the content their own with excessive, barring, editing and "warnings".

Basically if it's free-for-all, it's pretty obvious it the OP's content.

[Rate This]

Notice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!

So here's the question:

Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.

Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?

No... the first amendment does not apply to them or any other business.

So here's the First Amendment:

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.

Am I higher than the cost of living thinking this backs up what I'm saying? This says the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech. It don't say private business can't. A place of business can ask you to leave if they want, for having a foul mouth, for anything you may say. You could talk about a Ford Focus, and if the owner has had a bad experience with a Ford Focus, he can ask you to leave. Walmart does not allow people to open carry in the store. There is no law saying we can't do that. But it's their store. They can do whatever they want. They are a private business.

I'm still not convinced that Facebook and the others can't, for any reason they choose, restrict what is posted to their website. It's their website. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State of New York. It's not a public utility.

Depending on what news organization it may be, they are all slanted to the right or to the left. Does anyone file a lawsuit what a media outlet chooses what to run and not run? Look at the fringe links that we see all the time on here. Any regulators seeking to shut them down because they don't tell the other side of the story? No. It's free speech.

Am I using my head for self proctology here? Feel free to say so.

You are 100% correct. It’s between you and the government. It does not pertain to any other entity period. People misunderstand this. They think free speech means they can say anything to anyone anywhere at any time. This couldn’t be further from the truth.