TexasCHLforum.com

chamberc wrote:

C-dub wrote:

C-dub wrote: Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.

Oops. I forgot to include a link I had.

http://dailytrojan.com/2015/11/18/firin ... ic-speech/

The university was held liable for violating free speech.

Incorrect. It was held liable for termination without cause.

Isn't that what it's called in a non-right to work state?

C-dub wrote: Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.

Oops. I forgot to include a link I had.

http://dailytrojan.com/2015/11/18/firin ... ic-speech/

The university was held liable for violating free speech.

mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between the internet in general and facebook. When you sign up and access their site, you agree to their terms. No different than when you walk into someone's private business or login to this site. Isn't this forum a social media site set up for communication? We agree to abide by the rules here, why not facebook?

The problem as I see it is that AFAIK, no one is actually selling firearms on FB. They are merely agreeing to the conditions and completing the transaction somewhere else. This is a legal activity. There's very likely far more illegal and or immoral activities that are being done the same way utilizing FB that they won't do anything about.

chamberc wrote:

C-dub wrote:

chamberc wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

chamberc wrote:

Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

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.

Then I guess this university should ask for their money back since it only applies to Congress. Or the woman that needed some muscle to help violate it that has been fired.

chamberc wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

chamberc wrote:

Unocat wrote:I am not on the facebook, nor ever will be. Their move, however, is very typical of the "free speech, we tolerate others, except for speech and others we don't like" culture... I think they call them folk, "democrats."

Facebook is a private company. There is no expectation of free speech.

This is a non-sequitur. It's a communications platform and marketed as such, the expectation is that they will treat their customers in a manner that attracts the most to the platform. Being a leftist organization, they don't.

They have a very well known liberal bias and it's reflected in their content decisions. They have also proven to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian hate speech, despite Zuckerberg being Jewish.

Absolutely, but they have no reason to behave in any particular way. As a private business, they can do as they wish.

I was just thinking about the following. Although they are a private business, so is a telephone company. FB is used as a form of communication. Can a telephone company monitor and restrict calls between people if they don't like the content of the discussion or even deny service to someone because of that conversation? Wouldn't that be a violation of free speech?

I see this as another toe in the door type thing. They are trying to affect a legal activity that they have no stake in. What's next, the ATF monitoring phone calls to see if one friend is talking to another friend about buying or selling one of their guns. Will they then go after the telephone loophole? There are so many FB users that this announcement makes a bunch of people that don't know any better think that there is a FB loophole just like those that actually believe there is a gun show loophole.

I see this as another toe in the door type thing. They are trying to affect a legal activity that they have no stake in. What's next, the ATF monitoring phone calls to see if one friend is talking to another friend about buying or selling one of their guns. Will they then go after the telephone loophole? There are so many FB users that this announcement makes a bunch of people that don't know any better think that there is a FB loophole just like those that actually believe there is a gun show loophole.