According to SCOTUS they are depriving her of her constitutional rights. Precedent already exists and SCOTUS has previously ruled on this very topic.
According to SCOTUS, any private entity which functions as a "public square" for communication is protected as a public square. Banning her for discussion is a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights and is therefore a violation of her constitutional rights. Period. All case law is already on record.
If only we were a country of laws.
If only we were a country of laws.
We have enough more than enough laws. It's time for some enforcement.
Bingo, way too many laws
<If only we were a country of laws.
Yes exactly
Who is her?
Majorie (((Greene)))
She has multiple accounts on Twitter as far as I know. I'm not sure she qualifies here.
Where do you see any mention of her being nosed? She's been called anti-semitic quite a lot.
Sorry. Was specifically thinking of the congressman recently blocked. Greensomething?
Greene, yeah. I believe she has additional Twitter accounts. I'm not exactly sure she fits, but I see why you'd say this either way.
Sauce, please.
This sounds like bullshit.
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS (law.cornell.edu)
State constitutional provisions, as construed to permit individuals reasonably to exercise free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited, do not violate the shopping center owner's property rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments or his free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Basically, states can require public squares to permit First Amendment activity.
Yup. Incorrect.
California Supreme Court decided that Art. 1, §§ 2 and 3, of the California Constitution gave appellees the right to solicit signatures on appellants' property in exercising their state rights of free expression and petition.2 In so doing, the California Supreme Court rejected appellants' claim that recognition of such a right violated appellants' "right to exclude others," which is a fundamental component of their federally protected property rights. Appeal is thus the proper method of review.
What the 1980 California Supreme Court determined was that this group could hand out fliers and get signatures on petitions, peacefully and appropriatly, because it was open to the public and caused no harm to the property or to investors of the property, which was claimed by the appellate, but not proven.
Since this case, from 1980, there has been over a dozen cases against Twitter and Facebook where the court ruled that Social media does have a "right to exclude" those who violate their terms of service because the users agree to this terms and violations of those terms of service cause a harm to the value of the social media platform.
One example, if a advertiser (those who pay the bills on the social media platform) advertised to target people of color, and the posts on every one of their advertisements are "nigger", "all niggers should be hanged", " kill all kikes", that advertiser wouldn't advertise on that platform.
You are already blocked Jew.
Suck my dick, nigger.
(post is archived)