Take down tumblr, twitter, facebook, ETC. With this 1946 SCOTUS ruling.
Everyone knows there is plenty of precedent in all levels of law which treat the internet, websites, etc. as a "space", a "domain" (not to be confused with domain name or top level domain etc.) The exact same jump in legal mandate which this ruling uses, can be used to apply free speech to all internet websites by companies operated/owned in the US. The amazing thing is this would go exactly counter to the (((EU)))s mandate against free speech online. It hinges on the fact that the websites that the (((EU))) is trying to control are by a significant majority owned by US based/held/owned corporations. These sites: tumblr, twitter, facebook, google etc. would be absolutely torn the fuck apart trying to cater to the (((EU))) while being forced to follow the law in the US.
There is another SCOTUS ruling which I'm looking for but having trouble finding about some woman, and apartment and free speech (the 1st) which the court ruled that even though the apartments were private. Due to their near monopoly of available housing in the area they have to allow constitutional free speech and are subject to the same restrictions in disallowing it as the government.
Sorry mods. I take full responsibility for my faggotry on no source. However kiked (((wikipedia))) may be.
Samuel Gutierrez
Similar to Planned Parenthood of SE PA v. Casey, this case rested on the balance of 'rights'—the right of the company that owned the town to manage affairs on private property and the right of its inhabitants to dissemination of speech. It was determined that private property opened to the public entitle people on that property to 'public' rights (as with the 1st Amendment) in proportion to the degree that the property is public. As Marsh was living exclusively on the company's private property, it was determined that he was more entitled to 1st Amendment rights than the company was to their private property rights.
This is not the case on the Internet, as one does not live on a website like Twitter. Furthermore, so long as competition to these corporations exist, they won't be considered by a Court to function as public utilities. HOWEVER, unlike these social media platforms, many ISPs do have functional if not formal monopolies in certain areas. A situation where one can only access the Internet through a single ISP is highly similar to one where one can only access the town sidewalks through the company that owns the town. I would suggest putting pressure on ISPs more than these platforms, if only because there's a more solid legal case (i.e. there's more analogous precedent law with ISP monopolies than with social media platforms). Furthermore, a case can be made that in situations where ISPs act as a cartel (a form of oligopoly that engages in collusion) in their approach to restricting certain forms of speech, this is also analogous to Marsh v. Alabama, as the private companies have opened themselves to public intrusion and function as the only means by which a citizen can exercise freedom of speech on the Internet. t. not a lawyer
The PROBLEM with this ruling is that it gives legal grounds for “you have to bake the cake.”
Christian Thompson
Questionable. I can choose to only let certain people into my store so its controlled public access, but anyone can create an account so that is mass public access.
Adam Allen
Since when? That fucking shit right there needs to be nipped in the bud.
Luis Gutierrez
But yeah, pretty much anything the gov has a foot in, opens up those protections for the people. All the fuckery they have been pulling for years trying to silence the right is coming to a crashing halt.
Nolan Smith
I can bake you a cake but you cannot force me to write upon it. Buy yourself a fucking tube of unicorn cum and go to it, faggot.
Lucas Kelly
A cake is not speech. A cake is a cake. Speech is speech. The written word is speech. A cake is food. Very different. Baking or not baking a cake is not infringing upon free speech. Even baking the cake and refusing to write things upon it is not infringing upon free speech. To be a violation of free speech the bakers would have to bake the cake, and somehow prevent the CUSTOMER from writing things on the cake. Very different.
The internet has become the main avenue via which people communicate today. By censoring it the tech companies are destroying political discourse. Not OK at all.
Easton Ross
How? Is that bakery the only bakery in hundreds of miles?
Joseph Sullivan
Since corporations owned entire townships. It also makes fucking sense. As their decision outlined if you operate as a mass public access means of function then why the fuck should rights not be extended to the mass public? It seems like you're conflating that with being able to be used to force private organizations that are selective to grants the same rights. Which is completely untrue.
Daniel Wilson
This. Didn't he baker allow them to buy a cake and only say no to writing questionable (to him and his beliefs) things on the cake? If so, then why the fuck are anons mashing those two things together when they're not.
Liam James
More or less. The baker never said "NO FAGGOTS, NO SALE", he said he would sell any cake already on display but that he would not make a cake to specification, because therein lied the free speech argument in being forced to bake the gay cake.
Lucas Parker
Faggots universally deserve the rope
Eli Morgan
Unless users agree to a ToS when signing in. The yids covered this already, if you think SCOTUS are going to call mods faggots and force them to allow free for all shitposting you are a fucking retard.
Jack Diaz
Illegal contracts, even if agreed to by both parties, are null according to statutory authority. ToS = contract. You can sign a contract with me saying you are my slave- but I can't enforce said contract in the courts because it is an illegal contract. As such in many contracts you'll find a clause that excludes other parts of the contract from being thrown out with the unenforceable clauses- if that's not there then the whole contract is nullified. now go pick cotton you stupid nigger
That's (not the specific article) a funny thing I read about while researching this OP. California's constitutional amendment on free speech has been ruled constitutional but it's even more free than the federal one. California of all places.
