Anonymous ID: 1f23d1 Oct. 21, 2018, 7:29 a.m. No.3551835   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1846 >>1908 >>2023

The War For America: Supreme Court To Hear Case Which Could Impact 1st Amendment & Prevent Totalitarian ‘Big Tech’ From Censoring Conservatives Online

 

After the recent purge of over 800 independent media outlets on Facebook, the Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could have ramifications for any future attempts at similar purges.

 

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that could change free speech on the Internet forever. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, the case that it has agreed to take, will decide if the private operator of a public access network is considered a state actor, CNBC reported.

 

The case could affect how companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and YouTube are governed. If the Court were to issue a far-reaching ruling it could subject such companies to First Amendment lawsuits and force them to allow a much broader scope of free speech from its users.

 

The Court decided to take the case on Friday and it is the first case that was taken after Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.

 

https://www.sgtreport.com/2018/10/the-war-for-the-future-of-america-us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-which-could-impact-1st-amendment-and-prevent-totalitarian-big-tech-from-censoring-conservatives-online/

 

 

BOOOM

Anonymous ID: 1f23d1 Oct. 21, 2018, 8:03 a.m. No.3552038   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2109

>>3552023

 

Most Americans know they can speak their mind in the public square, thanks to the First Amendment. Speech on social media, however, can be censored because private companies own those cyber spaces.

 

But a recent Supreme Court oral argument suggests Twitter's practice of banning controversial right-wing pundits could be deemed illegal.

 

During a Feb. 27 hearing involving the constitutionality of a state social media law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that Twitter and Facebook had become, and even surpassed, the public square as a place for discussion and debate.

 

"Their utility and the extent of their coverage are greater than the communication you could have ever had, even in the paradigm of public square," he said while hearing arguments in Packingham v. North Carolina.

 

A majority of justices agreed. "The president now uses Twitter … everybody uses Twitter," observed Justice Elena Kagan. "All 50 governors, all 100 senators, every member of the House has a Twitter account. So this has become a … crucially important channel of political communication."