The purpose of this form is to provide general legal information, not to support illogical rants that have no legal purpose behind them.
Printable View
The purpose of this form is to provide general legal information, not to support illogical rants that have no legal purpose behind them.
The much more legitimate side of this is if Facebook or any other social media organization provides support to a US politician or party while taking active steps to hurt the other side is it an illegal campaign contribution?
How would you place a monetary value on such an alleged contribution? It's no different than an op-ed by a newspaper endorsing one candidate over the other .
I wouldn't make such a calculation but the FEC could.
No, it is not an "illegal campaign contribution" as it is not a contribution of anything of monetary value to the campaign organization of the candidate. Making your own ads in support of a candidate is not a campaign contribution, for example, even though it may indeed help that candidate. That is why you see various PACs spending tons of money on their own ads in support or opposition to candidates. I don't know what you mean by "taking active steps to hurt the other side" but FB is free to express its support for a candidate and opposition to other candidates like anyone else. They are not broadcasters and thus not even subject to the old equal time provision that the TV networks were subject to.
Here's a Vice article from 2017. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5...-political-ads
In it they describe a person not associated with the campaign who created the Trump 2020. How is this not an illegal act if not reported?
I can buy an ad on FB to promote my campaign for dog catcher. Are you saying that FB can give ads to the guy running against me and that not be a campaign contribution?
I haven't seen any valuable insights from you, but asserted that others were talking nonsense, so that you made people think that you are very clever, in fact you are just extremely rude.
One thing I am very confused about is that the US Constitution protects free speech against the government, and private companies like Facebook have no obligation to protect free speech. Is it wrong for everyone to be equal before the law? Do private companies have a higher status before the law than governments? And from a legislative perspective, legal provisions should be as universally applicable as possible. The subject of the law should be universal.
The above post is the first one in which you asked a question, so anything prior to that was simply ranting. Which is not the purpose of the board.
Nowhere in the Constitution does the law put protection of free speech into private hands. Nowhere in the Constitution, for that matter, is your right to free speech unlimited. While the government cannot restrict your right to speak against the government (something I do wish the current administration would understand), a private entity can put limits on you. An internet forum, for example, can restrict what you say. Another one is the common example that you do not have the right to shout, Fire, in a crowded theater. (Unless, of course, the theater actually is on fire.)
Since they can restrict you, they likewise have no responsibility to protect you. Why do you need protection by another entity? Why is it not your responsibility to moderate your own speech?
Facebook is not simply private property. It is a monopoly media platform for providing public services. It is responsible for ensuring that it provides comprehensive services. He has a responsibility to be neutral and to ensure that everyone's right to freedom of speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Otherwise, Facebook may steer public opinion in a certain direction in an extremely wrong direction, such as making Facebook ’s Chinese platform more conducive to the Chinese authorities and restricting opponents of the Chinese Communist Party from making full use of the platform.
See how evil the Communist Party is. Facebook actually helped the CCP
Chi Haotian: Only non-destructive weapons of mass destruction can keep the United States intact. The development of modern biotechnology has been advancing by leaps and bounds. Over the years, we have seized the time to master this type of killer, and we have been able to achieve the purpose of suddenly "clearing" the United States. When Comrade Xiaoping was still alive, the central government made the correct decision with great foresight: instead of developing an aircraft carrier battle group, he concentrated his efforts on killing the enemy population.
Tell you what, then.
Hire an attorney and sue them. God forbid that any public entity be allowed to shape public opinion. Who cares about the First Amendment, anyway.