Biden White House Officially Craps On 1st Amendment

@lisasweety
Ok Trumper?
Lisa, sweety - all Americans care about our First Amendment Right of Free Speech - not just Trump supporters.

The 1st Amendment was adopted in 1791 along with nine other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights – a written document protecting civil liberties under U.S. law.

That was waayyy before President Trump.

@Budwick social media r private companies so they can hav the right to show u the door🙄🙄🙄

@lisasweety Oh, I see. And that makes it the right thing to do.

@Budwick well it is the right thing to do considering trump literally orchestrated a fascist coup via domestic terrorism lol🤣🤣🤣

@lisasweety
According to the very people that censored him.

@Budwick It may not be "right", but there is a difference between what is "right" and what is "legal/constitutional". "Unconstitutional" would be a the government passing a law saying that conservatives can't speak on social media. Biden saying he supports the need for social media companies to moderate hate speech is not passing a law. It is not violating the first amendment when a private entity is stating that they will not allow conservatives a platform to speak on. Doesn't mean it's right, but doesn't mean it's illegal.

The same logic applies to when it was determined that radio stations did not have to allow equal air time for both sides of the political spectrum. They could choose to not allow broadcasters from either the right or the left from speaking on their station and filling their airtime. These would be situations where the free market comes in to keep a private business accountable to the needs and demands of the public.

@Enkis EXACTLY!!!!Thank you +1

@Enkis
Biden is encouraging bad behavior on the part of social media. It's the old picking winners and losers trick.

And your radio segment is really stupid.
They tried that crap before. It's simply a way to kill radio - radio is not friendly with commies.

@Budwick I don't follow why the radio segment is stupid? It's literally the same situation but with a different form of media. If you are saying that radio is not friendly with commies so we shouldn't be forced to have commies on the radio... how is that different from someone saying that social media is not friendly with conservatives so we shouldn't be forced to have conservatives on social media?

It's the exact same thing, you are just upset because one favors your viewpoint and the other doesn't. As a conservative, you should be happy to allow and be fully assured of the invisible hand of the free market to inevitably correct this bad behavior on the part of a private sector business.

@Enkis You GO!!!! +1 your style is spot on

@Enkis But we DO have commies on the radio.
So, how is it the same thing again?

When Biden - The President of the United States inserts himself into the situation - which he has - I think it becomes a legitimate 1st amendment issue.

What do you think counselor?

@Budwick We may have commies on the radio, but no station is forced to have commies on the radio. Don't try to move the goal posts on that. :)

Now as for your comment about being careful on what the President says - are you sure you want to go down that road? Because if so, we are going to have one hell of a party trying to defend how one President's viewpoints (Trump) are held as freedom of speech and another's (Biden) are a first amendment issue.

But, let's just keep it on topic here and not go wildly flailing into the weeds where we lose track of what we are talking about (because I really hate "Whataboutisms" and Gish Gallop).

Here is the quote in question you are referring to:

Asked whether Biden favored Trump's continued ban from his favorite messaging platform, Psaki said "that's a decision made by Twitter."

"We've certainly spoken to and he's spoken to the need for social media platforms to continue to take steps to reduce hate speech," she said.

So, to summarize, here is the entire list of actions taken by Biden:

1. Allowing Twitter, a private entity, to decide whether or not they will enforce their own bans.
2. Expressing support for companies to take their own action and moderation to reduce hate speech.

Here is the entirety of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you point to in there where Biden, acting as the Executive Branch, is violating it by expressing his opinions on the matter? Opinions, which I believe, are covered by the first amendment and what is at the crux of this issue. Unless you are saying it is OK for you to say that you think it is acceptable for hate speech to be on social media but not for someone else to say that is isn't acceptable? That seems like we have a very different idea on what free speech entails when "it's ok for thee but not for me".

@Enkis @Budwick

Since I posted this twice and you responded to the one I deleted, it is only fair that I be responsible for re-organizing this back to a coherent flow of conversation. Here is your response to my above:


Here is my response:

Both are denying a platform to their specific media for a viewpoint to be heard. That is why they are the same.

Now, do you have a response to the rest of what I said? As that is the real heart of the issue here?

@Enkis
They are denying a specific POV.

@Budwick Doesn't make a difference. Both are still denials of platform by private entities.

But, do you have a response to what the first amendment is compared against what Biden did? Sorry, I may not have made that ask clear in my above response.

@Enkis Private entities?
But, the government is now supporting those private entities.
So, maybe it's not private anymore!

Yeah, there's a lot of your response that's unclear.

@Budwick Does the government own or have a stake in those businesses? They do not. That makes them private entities.

If that is the hair you want to split, that's fine. But you still haven't addressed why it's unconstitutional. It is perfectly OK if you do not like the opinion he expressed through his representative - that is what makes America so great, we don't have to like what the government or other citizens say!

Is the opinion expressed by Biden acceptable? That is for the voters to decide in the next election.
Is Twitter correct in banning hate speech? That is for their customers and free market to decide.

But neither of them are acting unconstitutionally or supporting unconstitutional actions according to the very words of the First Amendment.

@Budwick heavy sigh

By "stake" I mean from a business standpoint. The government receives no share of their profits nor do they act as an investor or director. They have no "stake". If they do not meet those criteria, the business is an independent agency and, thus, a private entity and not subject to provide freedom of speech to customers using their business or services. If you don't want me to talk like a lawyer, stop forcing me to talk like one by deliberately misinterpreting what is being said.

How did the government ignore the first amendment? I have asked you multiple times but you still have not provided a concrete example of a first amendment violation in this case. Or even the government ignoring it in this case.

@Enkis i am sure he is in belief that this is a conspiracy of some sort... and there becomes a time when you have to know that what you say falls on deaf ears. You have made nothing but valid points and there is no rebuttal because those are correct in your statements. the name calling will start and all because there is nothing else to say.

@black4white Oh the name calling already did lol

@Budwick hes dumb,? then so is 75% of America who recognized the person with all the lies who was in office