Andrew Tate has been banned from Facebook and Instagram?

[Anonymous]

Is free speech under attack?

[Guy13]

Who is Andrew Tate... little area under question is for that, right?

[Asker]

The next Alex jones

[Guy13]

Got it. Makes sense. You Tube and Facebook viewership goes up.

[Anonymous]

Just goes to show how free speech is only free for sjws

[God_of_Thunder]

Why do people always say "free speech is under attack"? They clearly don't know what the hell "free speech" actually is.

The First Amendment (aka "free speech") explicitly forbids the government from creating laws that infringe upon freedom of speech.

Private companies (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) can limit whatever the hell they want, according to their TOS, which every user agrees to, when they sign up. The user affirms that they will follow the rules established by the private corporation, in exchange for the use of their product. Then they freak out when they get banned for breaking the rules they agreed to!

So, no; free speech is not under attack, because it doesn't apply in this situation. You do not have a right to use Facebook/Instagram/etc, and they are not a government entity.

I'm getting so sick of people not realizing this.

[Agagagagaga]

The user agrees to follow their vague and opaque terms of service, subject to change at any time, and if they don’t like it they can just not use that service that billions of other people on the planet use. Rest assured, if you’re a one-legged Black lesbian from Ghana named Paul, you’ll be fine. But if you’re a honkey from Kansas who posts about your love of Christ, you’ll probably get investigated for creating an “unsafe space.”

[God_of_Thunder]

@Agagagagaga None of which has anything to do with "free speech".

If they want to investigate everyone from Kansas, or everybody named "Steve" then that would be retarded, but still within they're right to do, as it's their product.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that I agree, or disagree with their practice. That's not the issue. My point is that it simply isn't a free speech issue, because the First Amendment doesn't apply.

[God_of_Thunder]

*their

damned auto-correct

[Agagagagaga]

So then people will never have any free speech in any online forum. They are all privatized.

So what’s the goddamn point?

[purplepoppy]

He attacked a women with a belt and encourages violence against women. That's not free speech, that's incitement to violence.

[EnglishEuropean]

No, he's still free to say what he likes. The point is nobody has to listen.