-
Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping the C
My question involves civil rights in the State of:
Facebook violates the U.S. Constitution and violates freedom of speech, helping the Chinese Communist Party control Chinese opinion in the United States
Facebook is a social media that is actually in a monopoly position. If Facebook can violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, it will cause fatal harm to the value of the United States, and condone an evil organization such as the Chinese Communist Party to restrict the right to freedom of speech in the United States. . Especially on the Chinese platform of Facebook, the Chinese Communist Party has huge financial resources and can direct a large number of people to complain to anyone who threatens them on Facebook. According to such complaints, Facebook limits the rights of the respondent and thus achieves the Chinese Communist Party's purpose of controlling free speech. and benefit the Chinese Communist Party's long-term rule, which is the greatest harm to American interests. Because the CCP is America's most sinister enemy. Whether it is helping terrorist groups in Afghanistan or creating thermonuclear weapon-level biochemical weapons that threaten all mankind, the black hands are the CCP. The recent shooting down of plane of American troops in Afghanistan is likely to have originated from the CCP's wapon help.
The Communist Party of China is the enemy of the United States, and my brothers and I hope to take advantage of the protection of freedom of speech in the United States to form political parties and penetrate the Chinese mainland to replace the tyranny of the Communist Party of China and restore the Republic of China. The Republic of China will be the closest ally of the United States, now and in the future.
It is in the best interest of the United States to achieve the political goals that we want to achieve by using the freedom of speech in the United States. Facebook's actions are actually helping the CCP and are the biggest harm to US interests.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
FB is a private entity and as such doesn't have to guarantee freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment guarantees protect us from the State suppressing speech, the press, etc.
Outside of that the rest of this is gobbledygook.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
penetrate the Chinese mainland to replace the tyranny of the Communist Party of China and restore the Republic of China.
Good luck with those invasion plans.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
Facebook violates the U.S. Constitution and violates freedom of speech, helping the Chinese Communist Party control Chinese opinion in the United States
It is impossible for a non-governmental actor, such as Facebook, to violate any portion of the U.S. Constitution other than by committing treason or engaging in slavery or involuntary servitude (there might be a couple other random provisions that I'm not thinking of, but any such provisions would be irrelevant to this post). The right to freedom of speech, as set forth in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies only to governmental actors. Facebook is nothing but a privately owned social media platform that is entitled to allow or limit speech as it sees fit.
The rest of your post seems to be a largely incoherent rant.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Although Facebook is a private company, its social platform is actually providing public services to the public. All participants created business value for Facebook. So all participants are Facebook customers. I get Facebook services, not the gifts that Facebook gives us. Facebook has an obligation to treat all customers equally, and it has an obligation not to discriminate against any customers. So Facebook has an obligation to protect the legitimate rights of Facebook customers from being infringed. My access to Facebook is maliciously restricted, and Facebook should be held responsible and responsible for correcting mistakes to ensure my normal use of Facebook.
Facebook is actually a social media platform with a monopoly position. If Facebook is left to influence the media's value orientation based on its own standards, it will cause great harm. In order to help the Communist Party of China propagate its extreme ideas and control the thinking of Chinese in the United States, it is in the interest of the CCP and harms the interests of the United States.
Quote:
Quoting
adjusterjack
Good luck with those invasion plans.
thank you. To succeed in the infiltration plan, I need to use a platform like Facebook to meet like-minded friends and promote my ideas. But now Facebook has greatly restricted my use rights and made my penetration plan more difficult to implement.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Okay, you've made us aware of your thoughts. Thank you for sharing.
If you think a crime has been committed or a protected right vioated, hire an attorney - a message board can do nothing to help you.
Otherwise, please feel free to take your rants elsewhere.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
Although Facebook is a private company, its social platform is actually providing public services to the public. All participants created business value for Facebook. So all participants are Facebook customers. I get Facebook services, not the gifts that Facebook gives us. Facebook has an obligation to treat all customers equally, and it has an obligation not to discriminate against any customers.
Not under U.S. law. FB is free to discriminate against customers as it sees fit so long as the reason for discrimination is not the person's race, color, national origin, or religion under federal law (assuming federal law on discrimination by places of public accommodation even apply to purely online businesses, something that the courts have not yet settled). State laws may provide additional categories of protection. But outside those limited protected categories FB is free to discriminate as it wishes.
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
If Facebook is left to influence the media's value orientation based on its own standards, it will cause great harm. In order to help the Communist Party of China propagate its extreme ideas and control the thinking of Chinese in the United States, it is in the interest of the CCP and harms the interests of the United States.
China may regulate how FB operates within China. FB is free to cooperate with what the Chinese government wants outside of China, too, so long as doing so does not violate the law of that other country. And lots of Western companies do cooperate with the Chinese government out of fear of losing their Chinese market. While American firms that do that risk offending some of their American customers, they don't violate U.S. law in doing it.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
Okay, you've made us aware of your thoughts. Thank you for sharing.
If you think a crime has been committed or a protected right vioated, hire an attorney - a message board can do nothing to help you.
Otherwise, please feel free to take your rants elsewhere.
Why set up this forum in your opinion? You are quite rude.
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Not under U.S. law. FB is free to discriminate against customers as it sees fit so long as the reason for discrimination is not the person's race, color, national origin, or religion under federal law (assuming federal law on discrimination by places of public accommodation even apply to purely online businesses, something that the courts have not yet settled). State laws may provide additional categories of protection. But outside those limited protected categories FB is free to discriminate as it wishes.
China may regulate how FB operates within China. FB is free to cooperate with what the Chinese government wants outside of China, too, so long as doing so does not violate the law of that other country. And lots of Western companies do cooperate with the Chinese government out of fear of losing their Chinese market. While American firms that do that risk offending some of their American customers, they don't violate U.S. law in doing it.
Although I felt a little frustrated, I was very taught.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Assuming you have suffered an injury and assuming you have Standing to sue, then do so.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
RJR
Assuming you have suffered an injury and assuming you have Standing to sue, then do so.
Thank for your advice.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
The purpose of this form is to provide general legal information, not to support illogical rants that have no legal purpose behind them.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
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?
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
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 .
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
I wouldn't make such a calculation but the FEC could.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
PayrolGuy
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?
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.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
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?
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
cbg
The purpose of this form is to provide general legal information, not to support illogical rants that have no legal purpose behind them.
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.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
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?
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
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.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
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.
-
Re: Facebook Violates the U.S. Constitution and Violates Freedom of Speech, Helping t
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
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?
Certainly nothing wrong with treating everyone who is situated the same equally. That is what the government must do. Private persons and companies, though, do not have that obligation except in limited circumstances where some statute or ordinance requires it. So, for example, all employers with at least 15 employees must not discriminate on the basis of race because a federal statute (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers from doing that. Many states similarly provide by statute that employers may not discriminate on the basis of race. In the absence of those laws the employers would be free to discriminate on the basis of race if they wished.
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
Do private companies have a higher status before the law than governments?
Not a "higher status." But certainly the rules for what governments may do are different than what private persons and entities may do. The Constitution protects the public against government abuses since without those protections the government, with its police power and military power, could take away cherished rights and mistreat the public. One only need look at China to see that.
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
Facebook is not simply private property. It is a monopoly media platform for providing public services.
No, it is not providing "public services". It is a private firm that provides a platform for people to communicate with each other and stay in touch in a variety of ways and that is supported by selling advertising. And while it is certainly by far the the largest platform providing such services it is not the only one and thus not truly a monopoly.
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
It is responsible for ensuring that it provides comprehensive services.
No. It has no legal mandate to provide any particular service, let alone whatever you mean by "comprehensive services". It is private firm and gets to decide what services, if any, it will provide to customers.
Quote:
Quoting
Junzhuo Gu
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.
As already discussed, the Constitution's protection of Free Speech only protects you against government interference with your speech. It does not require any private person to provide you a platform for your speech, does not require private persons to be neutral or balanced in the views they present, nor otherwise regulate private speech. Indeed, the Constitution's protection for free speech means that Facebook too may say what it wants and express whatever views it wants. This means that if Facebook wanted to present pro-China views, it is allowed to do just that. The government cannot prohibit Facebook from doing that because that would infringe on Facebook's free speech rights.