Comments on: GREAT NEWS!!!! SCOTUS rules for Packingham.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:31:03 +0000

Had Packingham lost, states would have been emboldened to do what NC had done, ie, ban registrants from social media sites and more. Instead, we have, for example, thousands of registrants on Twitter, sharing ideas about registries, raising awareness, and getting a little escape from social isolation, with no resulting threat to public safety.

It’s true that Facebook had already been banning registrants from their own site, but Packingham was never about that, a common misconception about this case.

By: JZ

JZ — Thu, 17 Sep 2020 15:35:39 +0000

In retrospect, this was a hollow “victory.” Corporations are given unbridled authority to regulate and enforce restrictions on social media to deny freedom of speech to registrants. Until the federal government removes that authority, which they never will, we remain a sub-class of citizens.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:29:39 +0000

In reply to PJ. Karen and PJ are expressing what I was curious about. As they are no longer a privately owned company, they have to follow the rules of law. i.e. equal treatment for all, and not allowed to "deny service" to a person selectively. I am hoping that the next step for many of us who have had their FB account removed is a class action suit against FB to reinstate our account/rights to an account.

By: ds

ds — Wed, 21 Jun 2017 23:48:21 +0000

In reply to Alex. LMAO it was good link :)

By: PJ

PJ — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:25:01 +0000

What about Facebook ? Practically every corner of the internet where you are able to blog and speak an opinion requires a Facebook account. They are “publicly” traded and hooked linked to almost every site (id say about 90%) where you are able to leave a comment, opinion and everything talking. Even more so, the news media sites. They hinder my first amendment right to leaving an opinion on an article that was published by the free press news sites. Anonymity is also protected by the U.S constitution and Bill of Rights to protect an unpopular individual from the lynch mob majority in our society.

By: Florida Action Committee

Florida Action Committee — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:24:29 +0000

In reply to PJ. Valid point PJ

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:12:37 +0000

In reply to Ana Marie.

I was not aware of this case. Thank you.

The politicians of Florida need to be made aware of this case before this next legislation session.

They need to be educated and reminded of what the law ACTUALLY says before they sit down and try to destroy more of our lives.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:05:24 +0000

In reply to PJ. Alito is a horse's A$$. He is more than likely peeved that he did not get to be Chief Justice. He was considered for it, but Bush "W" chose Roberts for payment on the work he did on Smith v Doe 2003.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:12:11 +0000

I listen to some Supreme cases via ” puppy justice ” on Youtube. It gives it a more comical tune to it. They do every Supreme court case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pU6qGfSWT8

*This is Packinham for those who want to here Oral arguments. It also includes caption titles as well.

By: PJ

PJ — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:05:47 +0000

In reply to Karen. Facebook is not only publicly traded, but if you want to blog or communicate and express yourself in the internet, you need a Facebook account to log in. Pretty much in about 90% of the internet where " talking and expressing your opinions is a factor, including news media outlet sites. I can't give my opinion in an article from a news media site without a Facebook account. They are hindering my first amendment right to an opinion on an online article published by the press.