They haven't. If it were so, the Ayatollah would have been banned too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Parler is shut down completely
- Thread starter Cooky
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
You really need to work on your reading comprehension
And no, Freedom of Speech is NOT at risk here.
What do you mean, "they haven't"? What are you referring to? That Parler did not moderate posts inciting violence? They in fact did fail to do that, and were booted off Amazon's AWS cloud services because they failed. There is more than ample proof of their failure to moderate.
And what do you mean about the Ayatollah? Is he running a website on AWS? And is he using it to foment insurrection, and Amazon is not doing anything about it? Can you point me to your source for this claim, if you believe it's true?
I'd like to remind you, free speech is allowed in this country still. The government is not suppressing anyone. Amazon is not the government. And again, freedom of speech, does not mean freedom to use anyone's services you want to foment violent insurrections against the government. You don't have a right to have you hate materials published for free.
If you wish to speak about freedom of speech, you need to address that point. Do you think haters have a right to use your church building as a recruitment site?
Reddwarffan
Member
It is censorship. And the "make your own Twitter" argument does not fly, as Twitter has become the public square, and US courts have previously declared Trumps Twitter account a public utility where the presidents communicates with the public.
No it is not. Censorship is when the government suppresses free speech. Amazon is not the government, nor takes orders from the government.
There’s no First Amendment problem with taking these privileges away; Americans don’t have a constitutional right to have their speech disseminated by private companies. On the contrary, the First Amendment gives people and companies alike the freedom not to associate with speech they abhor.
Opinion | The Scary Power of the Companies That Finally Shut Trump Up
Opinion | The Scary Power of the Companies That Finally Shut Trump Up
Wrong! The U.S. Courts had absolutely nothing to do with that. That was Twitter's, and Twitter's alone decision. The government, nor the court had anything whatsoever to do with Twitter's internal policies choosing to allow him on, or to remove him. Zero. None.
Reddwarffan
Member
Some international comments about Twitters censorship of the US president:
Alexei Navalny, Russian Dissident:
“I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship. Don’t tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone (not that I ask for it).
Of course, Twitter is a private company. But we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.”
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, via spokesman Steffen Seibert:
“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”
Boris Johnson:
“Social media companies are entitled to make their own moderation decisions. Social media companies must be held accountable for the consistent, transparent, and effective enforcement of their terms and conditions.”
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, President of Mexico:
“I don’t like anybody being censored or taking away from the right to post a message on Twitter or Facebook. I don’t agree with that, I don’t accept that. A court of censorship like the Inquisition to manage public opinion: this is really serious.”
They seem in disagreement with Jack Dorsey. But hey, never say nobody agrees with Big Tech.
Islamist Chechen leader Ramzan Kaydorov:
“Now I have something in common with Donald Trump: whereas previously he blocked my accounts on social networks, now the Almighty God has restored justice, and, as a result, the accounts of the mutinous Donald Trump were also blocked.”
Hillary Clinton also chimed in in support of censorship.
I have not heard from Xi Yi Ping and Putin yet, but a safe bet is they love it too.
So, at least some friends.
Alexei Navalny, Russian Dissident:
“I think that the ban of Donald Trump on Twitter is an unacceptable act of censorship. Don’t tell me he was banned for violating Twitter rules. I get death threats here every day for many years, and Twitter doesn’t ban anyone (not that I ask for it).
Of course, Twitter is a private company. But we have seen many examples in Russian and China of such private companies becoming the state’s best friends and the enablers when it comes to censorship.”
Angela Merkel, German chancellor, via spokesman Steffen Seibert:
“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”
Boris Johnson:
“Social media companies are entitled to make their own moderation decisions. Social media companies must be held accountable for the consistent, transparent, and effective enforcement of their terms and conditions.”
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, President of Mexico:
“I don’t like anybody being censored or taking away from the right to post a message on Twitter or Facebook. I don’t agree with that, I don’t accept that. A court of censorship like the Inquisition to manage public opinion: this is really serious.”
They seem in disagreement with Jack Dorsey. But hey, never say nobody agrees with Big Tech.
Islamist Chechen leader Ramzan Kaydorov:
“Now I have something in common with Donald Trump: whereas previously he blocked my accounts on social networks, now the Almighty God has restored justice, and, as a result, the accounts of the mutinous Donald Trump were also blocked.”
Hillary Clinton also chimed in in support of censorship.
I have not heard from Xi Yi Ping and Putin yet, but a safe bet is they love it too.
So, at least some friends.
I disagree... maybe your logic need help?
McBell
Unbound
Disagree all you like.I disagree... maybe your logic need help?
The US Supreme Court has declared, through multiple cases, that this is not a free speech violation.
If you want to argue that it is, take it up with the US Supreme Court.
Parler violated the agreement with their hosting site.
Their hosting site dropped them.
Now Parler will have to find a new hosting site.
This is nothing more than a breach of contract.
Parler breached the contract.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The right of freedom of speech in the Constitution deals with government limitation of speech. Not upon businesses that are not part of the government in any way. This is not a freedom of speech issue. The Supreme Court allowing to run their companies as they see fit is not the government interfering with the speech of anyone.I disagree... maybe your logic need help?
That is a very superficial view on a very wide and varied subject.
Parler might have a civil case if its host allowed
Twitter to survive despite its record of dangerous
language. Both Twitter & Parler took steps to
moderate such language, so there's a question
about whether the standards applied to Parler
were inconsistent.
So freedom of speech can be a contractual issue
even when its not constitutional.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is all that is required in this case.
McBell
Unbound
Which is what they did:
McBell
Unbound
Let us see if this is a "real" Freedom of Speech issue:
Now since the courts ruled that Trump was not allowed to block anyone from his presidential account or the White House account.....
OK... this seems to support my position. If it is wrong for Trump to block anyone... why is it right to block Parler?
McBell
Unbound
What position?
All you have done is declare "Freedom of Speech Violation" and start jumping up and down.
???????????
You supported my position with your site.
So who just jumped up and down?
McBell
Unbound
Who blocked Parler?
Parler breached their contract with Amazon so Amazon dropped them.
How is this a "Freedom of Speech" case?
Are you claiming that Amazon had no right to drop Parler over the breach of contract?
As for Trump not being allowed to block anyone on the Presidential Account, it was ruled that it being a public government account, it is a "Freedom of Speech" violation for him to block anyone.
Actually no. Amazon is now being sued for breach of contract. And you still supported my position by the site your quoted.
McBell
Unbound
What are you talking about?
You made no "point" about Lauren Boebert being sued.
Other than some vague implication that her case and the Parler case were somehow similiar.