It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

[obsrvr524]

@obsrvr524

I think the only issue with this is that the insurgent (and truly treasonous) globalists allowed certain communication companies to become communication monopolies. By doing so those companies became fundamental communication networks for the public. Even though they were not publicly owned, they were still in control of the public communication method and system.

They have done the same with the education system and their unions - giving them control over young minds who become older decision makers (the Eric Swalwells).

They changed the laws to allow for domination of a very critical infrastructure pinion, especially to any democracy - information flow and education - propaganda.

In effect, they went around the US First Amendment to defeat its intent by altering the safeguard laws while no one was paying attention. SCOTUS should have been brought in but they had already been corrupted too.

Now they are in the position of being able to literally hypnotize the entire population through subtle messaging - “virtue signaling” (while keeping the reasoning - the “consciousness”) silent. Words are forbidden or used to propagate attitudes, desires, and incentives - manipulation of a population. They create hatred or love wherever they want it applied.

Half of the population can never know why they hate so much because those who could reason it out accurately are never heard.

The USA is truly a Zombie nation now. And controlled by Globalist authoritarians - both corporate and political.

Did any of you realize The Body Snatchers movie plot?

[obsrvr524]

Allowing the monopolies involving public communication was, in fact, Unconstitutional even though US Congress had allowed it (US Congress often makes unconstitutional laws that have to be challenged and aborted).

The intent of the US Constitution overrides US Congressional statutes.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Silhouette

In US Corporate law there is such a thing as “Corporate Personality”,

Oh, ok, that justifies censoring the President of the United States, who is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution First Amendment Right to Free Speech.

You’re brilliant, just like smears, the two of you belong together.

“Corporate Personality” is above The Law of the Land. Genius.

I’m pretty sure I need to add sarcasm here otherwise this response would fly over your head.

[Urwrongx1000]

To any others making stupid arguments, like Sil and smears just did, I want you to explain yourself how Twitter, or any private corporation, has a law-making and law-enforcing ability above that of Congress.

Go ahead, I could use some comedy this morning. Make me laugh.

[Silhouette]

@Urwrongx1000

To any others making stupid arguments, like Sil and smears just did, I want you to explain yourself how Twitter, or any private corporation, has a law-making and law-enforcing ability above that of Congress.

Go ahead, I could use some comedy this morning. Make me laugh.

Oh, it’s not my law or my argument.

The Supreme Court ruled this.

Feel free to laugh at them, I’m just a messenger telling you what happened in the real world. I know you like to think that anything that doesn’t confirm with your wishes is corrupted, so I guess you’ll just be disregarding the Supreme Court on these lines.
But yeah, the First Amendment gives Twitter free speech rights, and even a US president can’t make Twitter say what they want them to say if Twitter doesn’t want to say it. That’s the First Amendment right of Twitter as a “Corporate Personality”, and Corporate Personality isn’t “above” the law - it IS the law. If you don’t like it, don’t take it up with me - take it up with the Supreme Court. I’m sure your legal expertise will make you their top priority.

[Urwrongx1000]

Nice mental hula-hoops, but you’re wrong.

The First Amendment protects private Citizens before any other apparatus, especially before a business or corporation, and the US President is the First Citizen of the country.

But you’re too simple to know anything basic about Civics or Civil Liberties.

It’s obvious that you’re not an American.

[Silhouette]

@Urwrongx1000

It’s obvious that you’re not an American.

Thank fuck for that haha
Fortunately I live in a much freer country.

@Urwrongx1000

The First Amendment protects private Citizens before any other apparatus, especially before a business or corporation, and the US President is the First Citizen of the country.

Oh really?
Tell me, which exact part of the following says so:

@The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

I need your expertise, Urwrongx1000, only you can save me from missing the words of this amendment that have anything whatsoever to do with anything you just said. Save me!

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Urwrongx1000

@Mr Reasonable

its not tho. u should read the 1st amendment. it just doesnt say that or anything even remotely close to that. here i will paste it below for u. tell me which part u r referring to.

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.

how dum r u tho?

twitter made “the law” that the president cant speak, which is even more illegal than congress doing so

bro congress shall make no law. it means that congress cant make a law that abridges the freedom of speech. twitter rules are not laws. u can make rules for ur living room. u can kick democrats out of your living room for saying things that u dont like. when u kick them out, they can go to a public park down the street and keep on saying their democrat stuff.

do u not have any respect for private property? do u think that u should just be allowed on someone’s property and that u can tell them to fuck off, and if they kick u out of their yard that the constitution is violated by that?

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Urwrongx1000

@Silhouette

In US Corporate law there is such a thing as “Corporate Personality”,

Oh, ok, that justifies censoring the President of the United States, who is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution First Amendment Right to Free Speech.

You’re brilliant, just like smears, the two of you belong together.

“Corporate Personality” is above The Law of the Land. Genius.

I’m pretty sure I need to add sarcasm here otherwise this response would fly over your head.

dude if u r not trolling right now then u r legit the dumbest motherfucker on earth

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Urwrongx1000

To any others making stupid arguments, like Sil and smears just did, I want you to explain yourself how Twitter, or any private corporation, has a law-making and law-enforcing ability above that of Congress.

Go ahead, I could use some comedy this morning. Make me laugh.

no one said that. r u confused about what a law is?

[Urwrongx1000]

corporations r not above the law, just becuz u believe they r

ur dum

[Mr_Reasonable]

there is no law that says they must give anyone any platform. congress shall make no law that abridges your freedom of speech, and they haven’t.

[Urwrongx1000]

internet is a public space, not a private domain, times have changed

[Urwrongx1000]

corporations shall make no law prohibiting speech either

corporations are not above congress

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Urwrongx1000

internet is a public space, not a private domain, times have changed

laws haven’t tho

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Urwrongx1000

corporations shall make no law prohibiting speech either

corporations are not above congress

they have not made any laws no one knows what u r talking about bruh

[Mr_Reasonable]

i am coming to ur house and im going to sit in your living room and read the communist manifesto out loud and if u do not let me then u r censoring me and that is unconstitutional and u r violating me free speech since u r not above congress.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

@Urwrongx1000

internet is a public space, not a private domain, times have changed

The global data-wars have begun… who can own/have access to what data… who’s moving their entire data stores where… which platforms are looking to be banned in which countries.