It's kind of obvious

That a lot of people don’t understand the 1st amendment. A private company doesn’t have to let you have a say on their airwaves, bandwidth etc. If an individual violates said company terms the company can shutdown their account (twitter, FB etc).


I think there is an interesting argument that can be made for the airwaves. ( I am being very specific in speaking of the airwaves alone) as case law and the FCC will both tell you the airwaves are publicly owned and that is why the FCC was created to monitor the usage of the public’s airwaves. So if any of the big tech companies are broadcasting through satellites or other means of using the public’s airwaves. Then that could be argued as under the purview of the FCC.

What do I think @MikeBKY ?


Yes, there is a clear distinction in law between electronic broadcast media and print media distributed via hardcopy. The public owns the medium through which all wireless comms pass AND wired telecom lines are regulated public utilities.


I’ve been reading this a lot, but I think it misses the point. Yes, the First Amendment only restricts government. But censorship is still censorship. If UPS decided to filter my letters inside my parcels, that might not be unconstitutional, but it’s still wrong. Free speech isn’t just a law, it’s a fundamental American value, and people are right to express concern when companies declare themselves to be the arbiters of acceptable thought.


I’m flabbergasted how simple ideas got so “complex”.

If the Bakers aren’t at liberty to decide censorship, what gives others right to make such claim?

The young ppl fresh out of college can’t recite the last two words of the pledge of allegiance to the American flag: #life #liberty
These same ppl will not understand the first two God given rights: #speech #arms

gay cake court case at DuckDuckGo


Conclusion: I’m disgusted with Duh-meri-caca


Does the phone company have a right to shut your service off if they don’t like who you’re talking to? Or because you dialed a number once?

Does your internet provider have the right to look through your email and say, “You can send that email.”

When you have a “private company” that is more powerful than all 3 systems of government and then use that platform to shut down the leader of the free world - the President of the United States - because you don’t agree with his politics, that’s a problem and all it’s doing is leading us down a path towards socialism. The braindead champion of people who don’t have a functioning IQ, AOC, said yesterday that we should implement a “ministry of truth” to allow what’s posted newspapers and online. Does that sound like communism and socialism to you yet?

If you think that Twitter, FB, etc… are shutting down people because of “violence” or threats thereof, you’re an idiot. It’s all about controlling the narrative and controlling what information they allow you to see.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin


So if for example you are texting on your smart phone, does the private service provider have a right to censor web URLs (removing the embedded link from the message) that you forward to a friend via text messaging?


So…let’s say some random stranger on the street rifles through your locked car while you are shopping and finds illicit drugs, calls the cops, and you get arrested. You think that is a “constitutional” search because the gov’t didn’t initiate it? You believe it is ONLY illegal because there is a state law against breaking into cars? I’m sorry, but your understanding of the law is flawed. ALL LAW in this country flows from and is subordinate to the US Constitution. As a private investigator, I dealt with these kinds of limitations almost daily.

As a disabled person, I once had my civil rights violated by a landlord for charging me more for the exact same rental unit than they charged my 2 next door neighbors who were not disabled. Won that one with federal DOJ arbitration (Civil Rights Div). Private company was the landlord. The Constitution does not ONLY apply to the government.


Sit down, peasants.

They did that to the sitting President of the United States of America.

Who do you think you are?


I don’t follow.

This. The 1A does not ONLY apply to the government. It applies to ALL of us. It is ILLEGAL to deprive another American of his/her civil rights.


You were doing good until you started the name calling. Never sink to their level.

1 Like

I saw an interview with Jonathan Gilliam on NewsMax. He said that when he was working for the FBI, any action that a private entity took at his request, made that private entity an extension of the Government of the US, and it would be subject to constitutional amendments. Of course, there will never be any evidence linking Big Tech to the Big Guy, just like there is no evidence of massive election fraud.

1 Like

But that’s the argument many are making. You don’t have to like it, but take it up with them, not me.

My point is that “censorship” is not limited to illegal government sponsored free speech violations. If a private person or organization censors other Americans, it can affront to American values, whether or not it’s legal.


“have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity where some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?”

-Thomas Sowell



Not sure why a pic of Mark Z was blocked. This is why I considering leaving this forum, canceling USCCA and going with another. Seriously.

1 Like

Re your original post, I would use moron instead of idiot :wink:


This post is definitely interesting. I get to see who in the community would load themselves on to train cars and who wouldn’t.


Hey, folks. Remember the community guidelines about name-calling. It applies to all of us.