Do you agree with Obama that the first amendment DOES NOT apply to social media?

[Pterodon]

Yes I agree

No I don’t agree

[BeMuse]

Nope Obama is a moron. He'll hang and people will cheer when he dies. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right. That is, it is a right that can’t be restrained or repealed by human laws. That's government's responsibility is to defend that human right. If you open your website as a platform to the public to openly publish, then each individual has freedom of speech on your site. Every individual is responsible for their own words. If you want to control what is said on your site, then you must act as a publisher and only distribute information from your paid staff that has been reviewed and edited by your staff to meet your standards. Under that arrangement then you would be liable for words said by you, or in the case of a corporation the corporate entity would hold the liability as well as the author as an individual. Under the law, social media companies claim to be platforms, thus they have no right to create laws/regulations/mandates/rules that restrain or repeal the inalienable right to free speech. I can't wait until that traitorous dirt bag gets taken out.

[exitseven]

The issue he conveniently did not talk about but is at the center of this controversy is that these companies are treated as common carriers and not news organizations. Common carriers are not subject to a lot of rules that other companies are subject to. However , the definition of a common carrier means it is accessible to the public. Social media platforms have been censoring content that they do not like for
many years. Conservative organizations do not have equal access to these services.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[Anonymous]

My friend, this is why the libtards are shitting bricks about the thought of Elon Musk buying Twitter and bringing free speech back. They are losing their shit about this. lol
Those freaks on CNN and MSNBC are freaking out about that.

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks for the MHO.

[Anonymous]

Who's Obama, that Mixed Race guy who was President a long time ago? He has needed say in anything anymore.

[Opinion Owner]

He has no say, he's just a civilian sitting on a bench watching women walk by now.

[God_of_Thunder]

Just by definition, it doesn't.

"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."

The wording very specifically says "Congress", so any entity that isn't Congress can establish any rules concerning free speech, and censorship, that it wants to.

Social media are not Congress, and can therefore maintain whatever rules they see fit, as they are not bound by the 1st Amendment restrictions.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Right on. Amazing how one word can change the whole meaning of something.

My teacher in high school taught me that "if" that small two letter word is found anywhere in a document be very careful and re-read everything because that small word makes a whole world of difference.

[God_of_Thunder]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Yep, exactly.

I just don't understand how people can misinterperet something that's specified, word for word, to fit their own narrative. It's completely unambiguous, and yet it's still debated. 🤦‍♂️

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

They don't care about the constitution unless it fits their benefit.

They won't have a problem with the 4th amendment clearly reading through it since they like their guns.

As I told some Gaggers the other day, if you don't like the U. S. constitution then just admit or start a new one but using it to your benefit when it's convenient isn't right.

[Pterodon]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy you’re right. You liberals point to the word militia in the second amendment. A militia is armed civilians that assist a military.

[God_of_Thunder]

I'm assuming that was supposed to be the 2nd Amendment, rather than the 4th.

FYI, I don't actually consider myself to be liberal, or conservative, because I dislike elements of both, but since we're on the subject: @Pterodon I do have a question for you.

People, typically conservatives, will vehemently defend the 2nd Amendment, word for word. I honestly don't have anything against this, by the way. I don't own guns, but it's in the Constitution, so I'll defend your right to do so.

My question, though, is why will people defend the 2nd Amendment, down to the specific wording, but then turn around and disregard the word "Congress" in the 1st Amendment, in order to try and apply it to social media, when it clearly only applies to government, and not private entities?

I'm honestly not trying to be an ass. I'm trying to be reasonable, because it truly makes no sense to me when there's absolutely no ambiguity in the wording of the 1st Amendment.

[Pterodon]

The difference is we don’t focus on one word such as liberals

[God_of_Thunder]

So you just disregard the parts that are inconvenient for you.

Gotcha. 🙄

[Pterodon]

Same can be said of you

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Pterodon: I support what the constitution says. I know good and well it said militia.

You don't see me complaining about that, but you are obsessed trying to dictate how private web companies run their business.

If you don't like their speech policies then don't go on there. It's that simple.

I don't like it neither but I have to accept it.

[God_of_Thunder]

@Pterodon I literally said that I defend the 2nd Amendment, because of what it says, whereas you specifically said you ignore words, so no, the same can't be said of me. The exact opposite, in fact.

I don't know why I expected any different from someone with your level of reading comprehension. I can see that I'm wasting my time trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, though, so I'm moving on.

Have a nice day.

[OpenClose]

I mean yeah. I don't think the 1st Amendment does or should do anything with regards to social media.

But advocating for free speech doesn't have to be limited to the first amendment. It just makes free speech the stance of the federal government. The rest of it has to come from elsewhere.

[jshm2]

Don't be a fuckwit and make things up, kiddo.

Obama rightly stated that business ToS in online regulation can trump government legislation. This puts businesses ahead of global laws, in digital content.

Democracy cannot last long when businesses can trump laws that others must follow. It makes the public second class citizens.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

He's right. Social media are private i. e. Facebook, YouTube etc are private run entities.

Their website, their rules. You don't have to go on their website, besides the point you don't pay a dime to be on their anyways to just say whatever you want.

The 1st amendment only applies and it's protected to you being in the public outside on the streets to say whatever you desire, not through a screen on someone else's web platform.

[Juxtapose]

I would argue that censorship on the internet should not exist for the same reason censorship does not exist in private phone calls.

[cloud9vortex1234]

Legally it doesn't if it's a Private Company such as Facebook or Twitter.

[ManHater]

Obama is a bad president. he's a shit head who cares what he thinks.

[QuietRunner]

I agree in that

also a baker can refuse to bake cakes too

[Andres77]

Did he actually say that?
Source please.

[Pterodon]

Yes he did. It was on Fox News Cavuto show

[Andres77]

I'm NOT surprised he'd say something like that. I'll look for it.
Thanks

[PerfectDark_Joe]

I think that is a risk ground to take.

[jimmy2]

I have never agreed much with Obama