Liberal Forum

IkeBana » 22 Jan 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 9:18 am

Wrong.  The First Amendment addresses free speech as it relates only to government action to restrict free speech.  Nobody has free speech tweet rights.  Internet social networking platforms are private businesses.  The owners have no legal or constitutional duty to allow anybody to say anything they want to say on an internet platform.  If the owners don't like what the member puts up, the post can be removed and, if the ownership is so inclined, the member can be banned from the platform.  There are no free speech rights on an internet platform.

Does this case have anything to do with government infringement of anybody's free speech or free expression?  No it does not.

How many times do you stoopid polack cocksuckers have to be told this?

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

FJB » 22 Jan 2023, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 10:07 am

You don't get the point... the owners are anti free speech. PERIOD

Vegas » 22 Jan 2023, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 1:10 pm

Jesus, you idiot. Why do you never read people's posts before you respond to them? Seriously, you make an *** out of yourself every **** time. Every time. This is about his trial trying to connect his tweet to wrongdoing in Tesla. It's not referring to whether or not private companies can allow free speech or not. 

God man. Why are you so **** stupid?

Vegas » 22 Jan 2023, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 1:10 pm

Jesus, you idiot. Why do you never read people's posts before you respond to them? Seriously, you make an *** out of yourself every **** time. Every time. This is about his trial trying to connect his tweet to wrongdoing in Tesla. It's not referring to whether or not private companies can allow free speech or not. 

God man. Why are you so **** stupid?

IkeBana » 22 Jan 2023, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 2:42 pm

You don't get that you hate the rights and freedoms of American business...**** communist.

FJB » 22 Jan 2023, 6:41 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2023, 6:41 pm

You don't like the rights of individuals

IkeBana » 23 Jan 2023, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2023, 9:47 am

Business owners are individuals.  **** Justin Beiber thinks they're androids or Democrats.  It's highly likely that more than half of all American business owners vote Republican.  Although **** Justin Beiber thinks most Republicans are RINO's...so he's **** up about most things.

Vegas » 21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm

Musk's began his testimony for civil securities fraud. Interesting case, in my opinion. On one hand, he has a first amendment right. He has free speech, just like everyone else.

Vegas » 21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2023, 12:43 pm

Musk's began his testimony for civil securities fraud. Interesting case, in my opinion. On one hand, he has a first amendment right. He has free speech, just like everyone else. So, he should be able to tweet whatever he wants, without legal repercussions. On the other, not all speech is free. We can't prank call 911, shout bomb in an airport, yell fire in a movie theater, threaten to harm/kill someone, or anything that could directly lead to mass chaos. With that said, did Musk's tweet lead to mass chaos, since it wasn't true? 

Actually, yes. It did. People suffered a loss of billions because of it. Now we could say, well that's the shareholder's fault for believing him. They should have done their own research. Not in this case. There is a certain level of faith and trust that is required. We can't go around researching every damn thing that comes our way. People still have to live their lives. He violated the trust of the public. 

Discuss.