🐷 Ethan Oliver Ralph / TheRalphRetort / Rad Roberts / Jcaesar187 / Rage Pig / "Killstream" / "Tequila Sunrise" - 5'1'' fat alcoholic, owner of a gunt, convicted felon and revenge pornographer, property of the ugly failed tranny pornstar Lucas Roberts. Has quadruple titties.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secret Asshole said:
Its whatever you want it to be. A 'private company' that used tech developed by the United States and receives millions upon millions of tax breaks to become huge. Its quickly becoming a public space and the argument is going to fall flat. They're too big to be considered anything but. Same with Twitter and Facebook. Either break them up or open them up to First Amendment lawsuits. Private corporation my ass. If the 2nd biggest website on Earth doesn't qualify for a public forum, I don't know what does.
Click to expand...
This is like Russell Greer tier legal theory.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: DatBepisTho, Cthulu, Rip_In_Pepperino and 4 others
It's strange to me that the Healstream money is returned (supposedly by St. Jude, but they probably didn't know about the 1488-posting until after Koh contacted their PR rep), but YouTube's policy on "hate speech" superchats is to donate them to charity anyway. I guess some bigots have nicer dollars than others.

How long do you guys think Ralph has before his Patreon or PayPal is shut down? They're not gonna ease up on him anytime soon if they're going as far as taking away his Streamlabs and whatnot already.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: not william stenchever, Drycantelope, UnKillFill and 2 others
Marvin said:
This is like Russell Greer tier legal theory.
Click to expand...
its actually not, there are legitimate arguments that social media sits may be considered public forums even if they're privately owned. In fact they're been recognized as such, to an extent, where states cannot ban you from going on one because they are a public forum and thus the state can't block your speech. There's a question of if the companies can, which is far from clear.

There's no hard ruling on the matter at current time, and controlling precedent indicates otherwise(ie, that the companies can because malls can), but that precedent is far from binding. We could, in the next decade, see a ruling otherwise
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: Trombonista, ChromaQuack, Dirt McGirt and 12 others
Marvin said:
This is like Russell Greer tier legal theory.
Click to expand...
No it isn't and if there's ever any challenge to it then it will be the route they go down because you can march straight into legal decisions already established all the way up to the supreme court. It's why protestors are allowed to protest in malls despite it being a 'private business' because it's a 'public space' and is the reason why the 9th circuit judge ruled that Trumps twitter feed is a public forum. It's because you can't no platform someone from something considered a 'public space', even if it is a private company.

And it's because the supreme court ruled that freedom of association is a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech. You can't effectively use your speech if you can't share it with others.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Disagree
Reactions: homonculus, Apteryx Owenii, Sinners Sandwich and 7 others
Sir Auroras said:
:story: Holy shit, I thought I was in kiwi farms not ResetEra. What are you doing here, buddy? You're way off the reservation.
Click to expand...

Plenty of progressives and especially radical feminists post on kiwi farms, maybe you've just been hanging out in the wrong threads? I don't know where people got the idea that everyone left of center has to be a pearl-clutching weakminded individual that can't handle healthy robust political discourse but considering how many right-wingers tell me I need to leave for disagreeing with them it might be projection.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: BuckBumble, Mister Loser, DatBepisTho and 31 others
Sonork said:
No it isn't and if there's ever any challenge to it then it will be the route they go down because you can march straight into legal decisions already established all the way up to the supreme court. It's why protestors are allowed to protest in malls despite it being a 'private business' because it's a 'public space' and is the reason why the 9th circuit judge ruled that Trumps twitter feed is a public forum. It's because you can't no platform someone from something considered a 'public space', even if it is a private company.
Click to expand...
protesters aren't allowed in malls though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner

Pruneyard is not nationally binding because it relies on the california constitution, someone from california could potentially take up a case against these companies who are also in california and that would be very fucking funny to me because then Pruneyard might be applied
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Nigero, Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL, registereduser and 4 others
Sheryl Nome said:
its actually not, there are legitimate arguments that social media sits may be considered public forums even if they're privately owned. In fact they're been recognized as such, to an extent, where states cannot ban you from going on one because they are a public forum and thus the state can't block your speech.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about the Twitter Trump ruling, you're completely misunderstanding its meaning.

It was a restraint on Trump's behavior as an elected official.
Sonork said:
No it isn't and if there's ever any challenge to it then it will be the route they go down because you can march straight into legal decisions already established all the way up to the supreme court. It's why protestors are allowed to protest in malls despite it being a 'private business' because it's a 'public space' and is the reason why the 9th circuit judge ruled that Trumps twitter feed is a public forum. It's because you can't no platform someone from something considered a 'public space', even if it is a private company.

And it's because the supreme court ruled that freedom of association is a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech. You can't effectively use your speech if you can't share it with others.
Click to expand...
Physical spaces are different than digital ones. Curating a platform online is a first amendment protected activity. The legal leaps people are making here are tremendous.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Apteryx Owenii, Rip_In_Pepperino and Done
Marvin said:
If you're talking about the Twitter Trump ruling, you're completely misunderstanding its meaning.

Physical spaces are different than digital ones. Curating a platform online is a first amendment protected activity. The legal leaps people are making here are tremendous.
Click to expand...
But the court rulings about physical spaces are being applied to digital ones, like it or not
 
  • Informative
Reactions: OgreSan and Rip_In_Pepperino
Dynastia said:
Plenty of progressives and especially radical feminists post on kiwi farms, maybe you've just been hanging out in the wrong threads? I don't know where people got the idea that everyone left of center has to be a pearl-clutching weakminded individual that can't handle healthy robust political discourse but considering how many right-wingers tell me I need to leave for disagreeing with them it might be projection.
Click to expand...
Aaah, now you killed the fun. It's already pretty obvious you're trolling. Male radical feminist, that's fucking great. :lit:
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Optimistic
Reactions: JSGOTI, Dirt McGirt, Jaded Optimist and 11 others
Marvin said:
They're not. Free speech concerns overwhelmingly dominate.
Click to expand...
But they absolutely are. Lloyd Corp v. Tanner is the controlling ruling on free speech on private property, which is what these digital spaces are
Before that, the controlling ruling on free speech on private property was Marsh V Alabama, which wasn't overturned, but is no longer good law.
These rules are being applied. Llyod Corp v. Tanner protects malls, and therefore a vast number of other similar private properties open to the public, including websites, in their ability to kick people out for speech they don't like.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: The Ralphacat, ChromaQuack, OgreSan and 1 other person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back