Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Trump announces lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter" video.

@StaticSnow Yes, but private companies cannot enjoy 230 protection while acting as a publisher or as an agent of the federal government.
2
@ChrisB_517 Beijing Biden can't handle Crayons.
2
@nafaidni After further research, you are correct on the section 230 definition of publisher/provider, there is no distinction. Thank you for correcting me. There are still issues with these companies acting as a state agency and censoring content at the government's request. Should these companies be designated public forums or common carriers? Justice Thomas seems to be leaning in that direction. Bottom line, we can not have unaccountable private companies censoring speech in what is effectively a public forum, they should not have the authority to decide what is true and what isn't, this is extremely dangerous, especially when the government is circumventing the first amendment rights of citizens by telling these companies which narratives should be promoted or suppressed.
2
@ChrisB_517 He had an account, it wasn't secret. Wow, an international businessman with legitimate business in China had a bank account in China. You caught him now. You must be smarter than the IRS who audits him every year and finds nothing. What did Beijing Biden and Hunter do for that $5 million the CCP wired directly to their bank account? Use logic, not your emotion and bias.
2
@petercristo992 Agreed.
2
@ChrisB_517 They shouldn't have foreign businesses? If they act in the interest of those businesses over the interests of America, that's illegal, but you have no proof that happened. Are you claiming that a person with businesses in other countries can't serve as president? If so, that's juvenile thinking.
2
I am sick and tired of the fascist, hateful, violent and morally vacant far leftists. My tolerance has been exhausted and I'm done being nice. What Pelosi and Biden have just done is cross a red line that will not be ignored.
1
@artemis2666 It's a bit more than that.
1
I wouldn't be so sure, justice Thomas seems to think private companies with zero accountability running the public forum and acting as agents of the State is extremely dangerous to our liberties.
1
@muninrob That analogy does not fit this case.
1
@muninrob You're missing a lot of detail about what these companies are actually doing.
1
@muninrob Here is just one example. The 1A restricts the government from violating your right to freedom of speech, which is being violated when the government does an end run around it by telling social media companies which speech to censor and which to promote. When a private company becomes an agency of the state or serves in that capacity, they don't have the freedom to censor speech. Are you aware or the definitions of public forum, common carrier, monopoly, oligopoly, compelling state interest, and conspiracy? You're trying to boil this down into a black and white scenario, but that's not the way it works. There are reasonable restrictions to Constitutional rights when there are compelling interests.
1