HAPPENING; SCOTUS TO DECLARE

>I posted it again haHA!
>in ANOTHER THRAED

u. pleb

Correct.

>ruled they are platforms
>12 year olds non stop spamming NIGGER DIK on every single tweet
>companies value plummets

Attached: 1539665348361.gif (319x240, 250K)

Derailing your Narrative and bumping another one of your shill threads off the board? No apologies.
Take some alka seltzer.

Attached: 1539039022704.png (422x413, 303K)

sweet thanks

Attached: GrEYPRIDE.jpg (670x471, 39K)

>inb4source
AKA I have no source

I can't take any more winning.
Are we going to recover all the Freedoms lost during 50 years of Deep State rule?

Attached: 221441541.png (436x716, 350K)

No, Jews will run us with a deeper state

Yes.

try 130 years

wuts shakin bacon... you nailed the "armband" info...

I think
Jews are too busy preparing to bomb The Gaza Strip tonight to pay to much attention to this.

Thank you, oo7.

Will Kavanaugh legalize rape?

SWEET!

What was the armband info?

No, but Civil Damage Limits for Libel will be exponentially increased.

>And that's a good thing!

Now Classified.
At the time I disclosed it, it was not.
It was only known at that time by a very small handful of Operatives.

Libel is dumb, you can hardly ever prove intent

Can and have against a State Actor.

What you just said there is better than the Special Forces Copypasta.
Such intense brevity.

Fag

It was a 7 year fight.

Projection.

That poor fellow.
You just one upped me in the Brevity dept.

QUESTION PRESENTED:
1. Whether the Second Circuit erred in rejecting this Court's state actor tests and instead creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability.
2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in holding- contrary to the Sixth and D.C. Circuits- that private entities operating public access television stations are state actors for constitutional purposes where the state has no control over the private entity's board or operations.

Thanks.

>I wish
Probably go telecom route to apply different regs

are you telling me soon instead of writing )ewz on twitter i'll be able to rightfully call them kikes and not get kicked?

Attached: 1525904382570.jpg (1243x1232, 174K)

Thanks for the QRD for the Civvies.

Attached: 1539570171895.jpg (750x386, 234K)

Ashkenazim would be accurate.

So, The Thirteenth Tribe Meme is rael.

This case will officially force Blacks to become Nazis and bring peace to Eve Online, strippers and sandwiches to be included.

Bumping for interest

Attached: DptfqrjXUAAWfa-.jpg (976x650, 150K)

Accurate.

Best case scenario

Most of "The Nazis" on here are black to one extent or another. Many are quite angry they are neither white nor black, and therefore have no identity, so they have chosen one.

Attached: Hillary scheming Jew2.png (293x318, 199K)

For the first time in recent memory, I have made an inaccurate post.
Please replace "most" with "many".
It has been a long 72 hours.

Huge win, I’m gonna cum

Nazi here, can confirm I am 100% of African descent. Heil Hitler.

Attached: 1537320707760.jpg (480x488, 33K)

Have you eaten any of your enemies body parts to gain their power, and does it work?
Asking for a friend.

Based and Lead Pilled.

check these digits to confirm

Attached: 16hourdaycocaine.png (945x612, 297K)

Explain the meaning of bringing peace to Eve Online.
I am only familiar with real life gaming in which lives are at stake.
I have heard of eve Online, but never looked in to it.
Is it an opportunity for Psyops?

Attached: 1539304276679.png (774x809, 606K)

>187
>murder

youtube.com/watch?v=j-FxA1jloTg

Could we be so lucky?

>off by one.
Perhaps not.

That's a lot more than one.

IRL yes.
Memerealm no.

Declare what? DECLARE WHAT?

Attached: 1527990602601.png (638x551, 609K)

Oh no that sucks...

telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/17/facebook-fire-us-officials-back-removal-zuckerberg-chairman/

QRD on armband info?

BTW, off topic, but having Hillary on the lecture circuit is waayyyy more effictive than having her in an orange jumpsuit...

>Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users

> The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
> The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
> The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

Absolutely happening is true.

Attached: 1538941997460.gif (720x780, 712K)

>Look at me, I'm the Jew now
Time to start buying put options on these kikes.

Attached: 1535509591605.jpg (1171x882, 663K)

They will win with the megaphone argument

>i own a megaphone
>i use my megaphone to convey my opinions
>because the megaphone is owned by me i determine who uses it
>other people dont have an inherit right to use my megaphone for their beliefs

There is precedent. I can't remember the exact case. It was a Jehovah's Witness v the City of Chigisaw, Alabama or something like that. It has to do with a private company owning the public domain. SCOTUS ruled that constitutional rights preceed the corp's rights.

So if the SC rules that it is illegal for for FB and Twitter to censor their users, what would result?

Would it mean that people can start going full 1488 and not have their accounts banned? What about trending sections? Would Youtube have to undo all of its shadowbans of videos that they have done?

Ahhh, i was looking a definition, thanks!

Probably abide by the constitution or take their pussy shit to the UK.

Marsh v Alabama

>In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Marsh. The opinion, joined by three justices, was authored by Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Felix Frankfurter writing a concurrence, and Justice Stanley Forman Reed writing a dissent.

>The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

>The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

>In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

Np leaffren
I wish we could win but boiled down to this basic premise it could easily be presented that way. Hopefully im wrong

They are state actors, with power and money on par with nations, and they collude with China and dictatorships.

Ah so i was wrong. Good

I am appreciative and also hurt that it took a leaf to deliver this post to Americans.
Thanks

>Thinking the Supreme Court is going to order private businesses to host all content no matter what.
HAHAHAHAHA
Did none of you retards pay attention in civics class?
Do you understand how much of the constitution they would have to tear down to allow that shit?
>Waahhhh my angsty teenage ideology from 80 years ago is being banned waahhhhh
I love it. Sooooooooo Goooooood.

>private citizens/companies not allowed to do what they wish with their products and services what they wish
I can't believe anybody on here thinks ruling they're public services would be a victory.

ABOUT TIME

Attached: yes.gif (380x262, 968K)

>I can't believe anybody on here thinks ruling they're public services would be a victory.
Well, it's Jow Forums, so most of the people posting aren't even from the US, so you can't really expect them to understand the law that well.

Point.
But its with kikebook and twatter.
Engage double standard afterward

fuck off brainlet

>b-but free speech is white supremacy!

Attached: 1527547657480.png (644x800, 15K)

Then again facebook and twitter arent using a megaphone. They are the makers of the megaphone in this case. And preventing people to purchase it based on political affiliation is unlawful? Not sure

These threads keep me coming back to /pol

Attached: BB3016B2-9E88-4CAE-8234-B50DA6E4B64E.jpg (363x372, 42K)

>private company influences public political bias
you tried so hard to make it sound nice.
you fuck off too cunt

So why can't I kick niggers out of my shop for being niggers again?

>Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702.

Good Night SUCKERBERG

Attached: guillotine.jpg (600x597, 146K)

There used to be a lot more of them.

Well when put that way.....
Good point user.... But what if youre the only store in the world? With these guys they run a monopoly on social capital. Like i said im not sure how it will go. But your point is valid and have considered this view

FBIANON was so dead on in July 2016, my all time fav.

> GOP dominating every branch of government
> These corporations are going to get regulated!
Expect a narrow victory for MNN.