I see. You commented on it without fully understanding what it means. Come back when you're done.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see. You commented on it without fully understanding what it means. Come back when you're done.
You accused him of not interpreting something correctly, without any citation. That burden still lies on you, not him.
Good for Apple. It's their party and they can ban if they want to. 
But you, yourself, said "processing the information". Well maybe you should finish processing said information before commenting on a post you're quoting. Is that too much to ask for?
Radical political views (in this case libertarian) amuse me because it's so easy to show their absurdity.
These short, blanket fortune cookie quotes are nothing but lazy thinking.
No healthy society would ever survive for long if *any* speech in *any* form would *have to* be spread.
Because that is exactly what your statement ultimately implies.
Apple doesn't have to host content or spread opinions they don't want to.
This is they own liberty as a company.
Packingham dealt with state action, not private party action. The First Amendment limits what government actors can do, it doesn’t limit what private actors can do.
The Court was referring to people having access to places where they can speak in so far as government action might (otherwise) limit such access. If state action isn’t involved, the First Amendment isn’t implicated. There is no substantive legal dispute on that point.
If you want to, you likely can find countless (First Amendment) cases which discuss whether state action was involved because, if it wasn’t, the First Amendment claims made in those cases weren’t valid. It’s one of the first questions that needs to be asked when First Amendment claims are made: Does the challenged action amount to state action?
The First Amendment does apply online, but only to government action. The government can’t, generally speaking, prohibit someone from speaking, e.g., on a social media platform.
The argument would lose on the grounds that the challenged actions were not those of government actors and, thus, that the First Amendment was not implicated.
You assumed why I commented or quoted the post. All you had to do is ask.
So why don't you help me process it quicker, so we can end this argument some time this week.
Here's a hint: P v. N was about government limiting a citizen's access to a service/resource, "social media" specifically - they used language that compared it to limiting a person's access to a town square, i.e., a public space. However, if the specific service/resource is private (ex: Twitter), that has a clearly defined terms of service, and you enter in into a service agreement, they have the right to remove you if you violate said TOS - there's nothing in P v. N that suggests the 1A has any sway over that private organization's "discretion", if the consumer (Jones) isn't a protected class (that was used as the support for their actions).
[edit] Slightly less verbose version: P v. N reversed governments limiting access to social media sites, but the site themselves, can apply their own discretion (in conjunction with the TOS).
Last edited:
Lets talk about the bakery controversy. The courts sided with the customers that bakeries don't have the right to refuse service to a customer, based on political, religious, or sexual discrimination views. That's a private company being forced. Can these issues, along with the online view be conflated in favor for said arguments?
Well, first, I'd imagine there are different rules for public places of physical business than there are online services, but that is purely a guess, admittedly.
However, when it comes to the baker in question, the SC ruled that while he has to serve all customers, he can't be forced to host something that violates his beliefs. I would imagine that Apple or whomever has the same power of their platform to not host things that they feel violate their ToS.
NVM,
The baker won the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.8d6dec267324
The baker won the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.8d6dec267324
You are missing the key factor. The bakery offered the same services to others.
I'm pretty sure Apple and Facebook would ban other big media outlets for hate speech as well, especially if valid complaints pour in.
Yup. It's not that the bakery was saying "no gays allowed" (that would be illegal), it's that they weren't offering the service (a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage) to anyone, gay or straight. The question then is not "can bakeries discriminate against gay people?" They can't. The question is "is this discrimination in the first place?".
I don’t think so.
The requirements for various places of public accommodation to provide services to various people are based on laws, not on the U.S. Constitution. Governments are allowed to implement laws which require businesses to do certain things (e.g. not discriminate on certain bases).
That doesn’t mean that the Constitution requires those businesses to do things. The First Amendment doesn’t require such businesses to do anything. It prohibits governments from doing certain things.
A government could, in theory, require that Apple (and Twitter, Facebook, etc.) allow various people to use their platforms without discriminating based on, e.g., the content (or viewpoints) of those people’s speech. Then the issue might be whether such requirements violate the constitutional rights of those businesses. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about whether the First Amendment prohibits Apple, and the like, from keeping certain people off their platforms.
If someone believes that there are already laws (e.g. anti-discrimination laws) which prohibit what Apple did, then they can identify those laws and we can consider whether those laws would apply.
If Apple was shown to be a platform and was shown to be affecting free speech then they would have no choice legally. But in any case, legally I think it would be shown that he was sprouting hate speech and would be banned for that.
If you have a bakery, and one of your customers is harassing other customers, you can kick them out. If one of your customers is chanting that marriage is only between one man and one woman, you can kick them out.
From what I understand, political affiliation isn’t a protected class in most of the US.
Anti-discrimination laws against what? The Far Right?
Political views or groups don't even fall under the realm of claiming discrimination.
Is The Blaze firing of Tomi Lahren for saying she's Pro Choice fall within discrimination? I think not.