Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My Tweets are blocked on Twitter
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3073079" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>No. No, it doesn't. You still have the <em>freedom</em> to go start your own platform. (With hookers and blackjack, if you so desire.) The government won't be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say or suppress on your platform, either. You <em>don't</em> have the <em>freedom</em> to use somebody else's platform to compel somebody else to carry your speech, even if that somebody else is a public company (which, I would note, is no different from a private company save for the fact that the ownership is traded on a public market instead of privately amongst a few people; there is a distinction for a <em>closely-held</em> company, but even that is relatively minor).</p><p></p><p>Corporations, for the purpose of the First Amendment, have the same rights as natural persons; that was the central holding of the <em>Citizens United</em> decision. Do you think the Court should have said "no, you're a corporation, you can't take sides" and let the FEC suppress <em>Hillary: the Movie</em>?</p><p></p><p>(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC" target="_blank"><em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</em>, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)</a>.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3073079, member: 13624"] No. No, it doesn't. You still have the [I]freedom[/I] to go start your own platform. (With hookers and blackjack, if you so desire.) The government won't be allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say or suppress on your platform, either. You [I]don't[/I] have the [I]freedom[/I] to use somebody else's platform to compel somebody else to carry your speech, even if that somebody else is a public company (which, I would note, is no different from a private company save for the fact that the ownership is traded on a public market instead of privately amongst a few people; there is a distinction for a [I]closely-held[/I] company, but even that is relatively minor). Corporations, for the purpose of the First Amendment, have the same rights as natural persons; that was the central holding of the [I]Citizens United[/I] decision. Do you think the Court should have said "no, you're a corporation, you can't take sides" and let the FEC suppress [I]Hillary: the Movie[/I]? ([URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC'][I]Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission[/I], 558 U.S. 310 (2010)[/URL].) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
My Tweets are blocked on Twitter
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom