Why are there so many retards that don't understand what the American 1st Amendment means?

I don't care about the rights of corporations to engineer society through speech censorship, in whatever way they imagine makes them the most money, else it is their little pet social project.
I'm fine with taking that ability away from them and imposing they can't do so. Just as much I am telling every last person of the contrary opinion to go fuck their mother.

Persecuting people for their beliefs to the point of making them unable to work a job and sustain themselves isn't what the founding fathers intended

>ban person who fails ideological litmus test
lmao you're just an ass we're showing you the door
>flip the situation
OMG LITERAL NAZIS

That's not very free of you to ask for the state to impose regulations on corporations. If you are a proud defender of liberty, as you say you are you would leave it to the free market to decide.

He will ignore this
sage thread, OP is a faggot.

I agree. Which is why we should not regulate Twitter.

>Coming from a fucking self-identified Roo.
FTFY

nice. gj bro

Or for that matter having a cartel of companies own a borderline monopoly on infrastructure and then leveraging that to push their preferred political agenda.

It's not technically against the 1st amendment, but it sure as fuck is against the spirit of it, and libs would be absolutely losing their shit over this if the tables were turned.

THIS

Who cares about any amendments or rights?
Deplatforming is a problem because of central authorities which will be fixed with decentralized platforms.

xkcd is a liberal cocksucking cuck. He's only making that argument because it's to his advantage. Decades ago, leftist fucks like xkcd were raging about how unfair that 95% of talk radio was devoted to right wing talk and they wanted to bring back the fairness doctrine. Meanwhile, people deplatformed by Google and social media are still paying these companies anyway because they pay taxes on their subsidies.

>People aren't saying that facebook removing their post is a violation of their 1st amendment
Yes, they are.
>It’s Damore’s claim that Google stifles dissent, in the memo he called “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” that may keep his ideas in the forefront of public debate. Signs are that he may sue Google, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights, or of his rights under federal labor law.
This is just one example. There are hundreds of Jow Forums cocksuckers out there that believe private companies have to obey the 1a

>having a cartel of companies own a borderline monopoly on infrastructure and then leveraging that to push their preferred political agenda.
You mean a few different companies got ultra rich and now own the biggest tech companies? Are you complaining about capitalism here?
>It's not technically against the 1st amendment, but it sure as fuck is against the spirit of it
>not breaking the law
>but because it hurts my fee fees it should be law
yeah ok buddy

I want to point out an alternative to either business as usual or forcing social media to stop censoring companies.

If you make a new law compelling social media to give a platform, that will backfire because it will be Big Government leftist overseeing it all and they will apply the rules only when it's to their advantage.

The tech oligarchy is a government-created entity funded by taxpayers in the form of subsidies. And you can bet there are now a mountain of regulations put in place at the behest of Big Tech to kill competition with red tape. Defund Big Tech. Take all their shekels and protectionist regs and you take all of their power. This will give smaller start-ups a chance to compete.

And here I thought Lithuania was full of retards.

>If you make a new law compelling social media to give a platform, that will backfire because it will be Big Government leftist overseeing it all and they will apply the rules only when it's to their advantage.
Exactly this. By regulating Twitter, you make it harder to remove.

Anyone who willingly gives away their God given rights to corporations is a coward.

How the hell is POTUS infringing on the media? He just yells at them, as far as I'm aware there's no policy in the works or inacted to infringe on the media.

what's the difference between a religion and a private company?

google:
>you have to have a certain set of beliefs to be allowed there

judaism/islam/christianity:
>you have to have a certain set of beliefs to be allowed there

The problem here is that google TOS is basically like the bible now. If you have the wrong beliefs you are a heretic!

Attached: grey.jpg (1195x893, 317K)

Anyone who willingly gives away their God given rights to Governments is a coward.

doesn't matter the place you do it from

>as far as I'm aware there's no policy in the works or inacted to infringe on the media.
There's the fact that Trump has literally banned CNN from the Whitehouse

Attached: 1530837464005.png (645x729, 63K)

Thanks for stating the obvious, OP. I was merely trying to point out the hypocrisy in worrying only about government infringing on our rights when it--infringement of rights--is liable to happen any such time an excess of power is concentrated into too few hands (leading to corruption, elitism, and control). We can deal with Big Tech as suggested by pulling the subsidy rug out from under them--a friendly reminder that government money corrupts everything it touches--and by breaking out the anti-trust hammer and smashing these companies into smaller versions of themselves, opening the market and distribution methods to competition. The only real regulation that I really want to see for Big Tech, besides that, regards the processing/disposal of metadata.

... And yet CNN's Jim Acosta was at the Kavanaugh swearing in and other White House events. It hardly stops them from reporting on the President, or asking him questions outside of press conferences.

Is it really infringement on the "media" that one organization is booted into the doghouse? Not really. Is it a bad sign? Probably. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it the end of Free Press? No.

becuase 'le 1st amendment is a social construct

xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>literally

Attached: soy.png (201x250, 5K)

Maybe Randall should get his shit dropped by GoDaddy and then see how he likes it

>Silicon Valley is not the United States government
Wrong
youtu.be/BZh4ow0yhZM

You got Ron Paul'd

You're just mad you have to use manual actions against emus and abbos.

Except people are arguing exactly that, as the sites serve as a modern version of the town square, where a significant amount of discourse takes place; the basis being based on precedence set by a ruling in 3D-land where a privately owned town square, being one of the main gathering places, was deemed to be covered by the 1A.

>banned CNN from the white house
False

Attached: 6b7.png (645x729, 23K)

True. I said "has" as in past tense. As in, has banned a reporter (Kaitlan Collins) was removed from any further events.

Attached: 1524994218349.png (645x729, 62K)

Then he banned a specific reporter, not the entire news network

These big tech firms are trusts and anti-competition, and should be broken up. That would alleviate much of this problem.

>CNN, New York Times, Politico, others barred from White House briefing
All of these networks were ejected from a White House press briefing for no other reason than they criticize Trump.

Another retard conflating free speech and the 1st amendment

yeah cunt, the exact wording is

>you fucking pooftas can say what you want but some antifa cunt can up and glass you and you're square. righto?

beautiful constitution, beautiful nation, ruined by blumph. I really don't see why civility has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Mindas deserve to be punched though.

>You mean a few different companies got ultra rich and now own the biggest tech companies?
He's complaining about a monopoly on power that is owned by some lucky kikes silencing dissenting views. This is completely reasonable.
>Are you complaining about capitalism now?
Is capitalism some religion to you, faggot?
>yeah, le ok buddy
Give me one fucking reason I shouldn't want this oligopoly to crash and burn. Why shouldn't I use the law to stop them?

Attached: 1538623874717.png (1228x1150, 191K)

Spirit of the law used to matter. Stop jewing