>In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah's Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town's roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech--and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects--the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.
>In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh's favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban free speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.
>Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the Internet, it's clear that Marsh v. Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers. the statute also applies to ISP's since they wield a monopoly over Internet access. All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer arguing that these left-wing Big Tech companies are literally violating the Constitution.
The Internet generally is not a monopoly by any corporation. No port or IP address is blocked by any corporation, citizens and non-citizens are free to utilize any port with a connecting recipient port. Platforms such as twatter, G-, and others are opt-in and at-will participation.
Jonathan Wilson
nice find op
remember the tv waves are public spectrum. that includes 5g.
i thought being a publicly traded company meant they have to follow laws like the government not this private business i can do what i want attitude.
Cooper Campbell
most of the hardware those connections occur on are owned by big names.
Joseph Torres
>distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama > Chickasaw > Alabama why the fuck is a city in alabama named after a native american tribe from the carolinas? >In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court rule... no answer me faggot dont try to change the subject >Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other ... fuck you and this faggy story ima find out the truth you nigger
Xavier Robinson
True, but Microsoft was found guilty of anti-trust in 1999, and there was smaller alternative OS's during that time.
Luis Collins
why are her tits at her belly button?
Ryder Martin
The "internet companies" don't exclude you from putting up your own website, social media platform, or search engine.
In fact, there's plenty of bandwidth to do that.
But altright is too stupid and uneducated to do this so they have to rely on Jews, lol.
110%, I know some of you anons are lawyers, file this suit
Easton Reyes
forget the court bs the pic is what im replying to if she lost the fake gold and trimmed her claws i would be willing to join her cult
Kayden Hernandez
>you are free to buy your own land and open your own public square fuck off jews.
Nolan Kelly
>Marsh v. Alabama >Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner If you cant get free speech in a shipping mall, ur not gonna get it from Google by court order
Jace Flores
I'd argue your statement isn't 100%. Ever read your terms of service with your ISP? They put considerable restrictions on home connections including limiting the types of services and connections you can do (e.g. running a home server).
Ian Cook
>The Chickasaw (/ˈtʃJkəsɔː/ CHIK-ə-saw) are an indigenous people of the Southeastern Woodlands. Their traditional territory was in the Southeastern United States of Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee.
A company town is also not a monopoly. It's one town.
Kayden Perry
The American Renaissance Foundation is already suing I think Twitter on this exact basis.
Luis Clark
There already a remedy for monopolies
Its called Anti-Trust Law
Anthony Cooper
So it's been determined that it comes down to who holds the "preferred position". "The Court said, “it is necessary that the public be informed and that its information is uncensored."
But in the case of the shopping mall it's stated that they could have had similar reach on "any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building."
Luke Thompson
>lawyers >/pol the schizophrenia board Yep, in their minds.
Kevin Rogers
>look up Helen Flanagan >turns out she's been blacked and has half-breed children Every fucking time
>similar reach on "any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building."
The court recognized they're right to free speech was not violated because they had access to public locations that they could exercise such rights.
It similarly applies to Google. You can always pass out handbills in a public park instead of posting a listing on Google.
Lincoln Hall
Used to be in a serious relationship with a girl who's family was JW's.
>Run away. >Run like hell.
Robert Torres
>The "internet companies" don't exclude you from putting up your own website, social media platform, or search engine. Thats when the jew owned financial institutions all gang up on you and prevent you from being able to pay or the isp owners block you.
Why shouldn’t twitter be forced to bake a gay cake?
Brayden Rogers
No they don't. You could even set up your own ISP if you had the initiative.
But you don't. So shut the fuck up.
Luke Jackson
True, but it comes down to the reach. In Lloyd v Tanner the court said >"For citizens to participate in this nation's government, it is necessary that the public be informed and that its information is uncensored."
In a case of federal or state politics, Internet postings are a requirement for the public to be informed.
Seems to come down to balancing First Amendment rights against the owner's property rights. Which comes down to who is burdened the most by the courts decision.
Julian Hughes
>but installing all these censoring filters isn't a burden at all!
Asher Davis
Would be a First Amendment rights against the owner's Freedom of Religion rights, and who is burdened the most... surely there's another bakery.
Isaac Miller
that's a bad ruiling
do we really want muslims to leave uk and get to usa claiming they can setup shop and exlude everyone else?
open a business in america, serve everyone.
Nicholas Reyes
This. I've seen such actions as an eventuality, but this is some legit precedent.
Are you saying white people don't own and run banks?
Lincoln Roberts
would have made a great argument, if Jow Forums didnt fuck the dam monopoly on free speech
Cameron Parker
I think the biggest win, is that by banning people, they are admitting to becoming a publisher and not platform, and thus, should not have protections like a platform would but instead have obligations of a publisher
Benjamin Martinez
This was the argument that Jordan Peterson made, they've just made a horrible decision as now they are effectively responsible for all the content they host, rather than just being a transport service.
Ayden Morris
Why does the Supreme Court keep having all these split decisions? If they’re all such experts on the constitution shouldn’t most decisions be unanimous or just one decenter
Samuel Ward
I could tell she was trashy in one glance. She's what my granny would call: 'Brassy'
Josiah Wilson
You need to be super fucking rich, have a super good lawyer, and a willingness to open yourself up to slander and having your ENTIRE web history/posting history exposed to the world for such a thing to happen.
Google and co have millions of dollars and dozens of high priced lawyers trained to ensure they never see the light of day in a court of law. Not to mention all being based out of California, which lets them countersue anyone who sues them into oblivion for shits and giggles while making the plaintiff foot the corporation's legal bills.
Anthony Flores
>Marsh v. Alabama 2 of the 3 were FDR nominated...
Carter Bennett
Trips of truth sadly. We need a revolution.
Aaron Wilson
Could you sue them in your home state... has to do with personal jurisdiction... particularly one with a server farm in it. Google has farms in California, South Carolina, Iowa, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Oregon.
The Supreme Court held that a corporate defendant is "at home" in only three possible jurisdictions: (1) the state in which the corporation is incorporated; (2) the state in which the corporation has its principal place of business; and (3) in an "exceptional case," any state in which the corporation's operations are so substantial that it also is "at home" in that additional state (or states).
The Supreme Court next looked to see if there were facts to support the "exceptional case" in which a corporation's ties to a state are so substantial that, in essence, it creates an additional, or second, principal place of business.
>In another incident, Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report, a news and gossip website, made allegedly defamatory statements about a Washington, D.C. resident on the Drudge Report website. Although Drudge lives and writes his column in California, a court ruled that he was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia because the injury occurred in the District of Columbia and Drudge had the following contacts with the state: Drudge personally emailed his column to a list of District of Columbia email addresses; Drudge solicited contributions and collected money from District of Columbia residents; Drudge traveled to the District of Columbia twice to promote his column; and D.C. residents systematically supplied Drudge with the fodder for his business -- news and gossip. Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D. DC 1998).
So based on that google can be sued in every state.
Xavier Thompson
What you idiots don't get is that free speech has been dead since 1977 when they banned cheese pizza.
Now that it's established that pizza isn't covered by the 1st, other things can be put in that category. Unprotected speech exists.
Unless you want to argue that pizza should be allowed by law on Jewtube, you have no argument.
Fake news is literally becoming unprotected speech. There will be a case that establishes this at some point in the future, I'd bet.
Lucky for you idiots, hate speech will always be protected.
