I've wondered this for a long time...but I've never really asked this out loud. I am not a constitutional law expert nor do I pretend to be one--but how is InfoWars not the constitutional equivalent of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I guess the answer to that question goes to whether you agree with Schenck vs. US or Brandenburg vs. Ohio when it comes to tests of the First Amendment. I am guessing that this issue will probably come up again in the Supreme Court soon, given everything that's happened with fake news, Russian trolls, and far-right loons feeding conspiracy theories to the masses.
Because you have to prove real, tangible harm. That becomes difficult in court.
We all KNOW the harm misinformation and conspiratard propaganda causes. But taking that to the level of real tangible harm in court is different.
Unfortunately, Jones falls under Brandenburg vs. Ohio.
Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
So, Sandy Hook victims having to move around due to threats of violence does not pass the test for "imminent danger"?
Also, Brandenburg dealt with KKK members expressing an opinion (inciting violence against blacks and Jews), but did not deal with comments that were blatant lies. I thought the opinion in Schenck very clearly stated that a dangerous falsehood would not be tolerated.
At what point are lies that either threaten a group with imminent harm, OR prevent a group from exercising a constitutional right (I.e. voting) no longer considered protected free speech?
Who are the tyrants again??I seek a Second Amendment solution or violent death for those who dispute my political views or speech.
Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
So you believe that the government can and should force a private company to provide a format for those that it does not agree with? There is nothing stopping these people or groups from starting up their own social media app and spewing whatever they like. This is not a left v right issue. Its a first amendment issue, one that has been resolved several times. What part are you confused about?Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
Good start. Youtube needs to step up.
Simple proof that the left are not to be trusted with power.
If interfering with social media is an attack on democracy, by their own standards, the heads of the silicon valley left should hang, that is the punishment for treason.
This makes it clear for all to see, what the left has become, and its why you are not to be trusted with power. You see fascists everywhere, but you are the tyrants you complain about. Its no surprise the left so fear the second amendment, because you intend on behaving in ways which will validate its existence.
If you don't like it, then start your own media streaming service instead of demanding some socialist 'right' to use the private property of others in violation of their clearly established terms of service.