Comments on: New lawsuit may provide access to social media.

By: Media

Media — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:01:55 +0000

Regardless of how you feel about the Trump situation, there is much talk in the media about Congress now possibly broadening the interpretation of the 1st amendment, as Americans are being “robbed of their right to communicate freely and exchange ideas”. I am not saying that you need to agree with all of this, but this concept of all citizens being guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and association and barring government censorship could eventually lead to people on the sex offense registry from being barred by social media, particularly with some courts now ruling that states cannot bar registrants from social media.

By: DavidM

DavidM — Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:35:39 +0000

This was filed 2 years ago is there still no judgement in this case?

By: obvious answer

obvious answer — Sun, 26 Jan 2020 12:38:57 +0000

class action. if every disenfranchised joins together they would win

By: JoeM

JoeM — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 04:39:44 +0000

So some guy blew the whistle on Facebook for this data mining scheme. He said they knew for 2 years and said nothing. Their response? They suspended his FB account. LOL.

By: PJ

PJ — Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:36:31 +0000

and then there is this…

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/27/17057754/sesta-fosta-passes-congress-cda-230-house-of-representatives

By: JoeM

JoeM — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 20:12:35 +0000

In reply to Ben. Where the private club exception fails is if said club is using any public property. That is what happened to a yacht/fishing club in palm Beach a number of years back. They didn't own the bay bottom under their dock, but were "leasing" it from the State. California law says that companies may not discriminate in providing "business services." Facebook is a business service because they take in ad revenue and provide pages for businesses.

By: Josh James

Josh James — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:12:05 +0000

In reply to JEV. Many private companies are sued each year. Being private makes it not held to the same standard as government entities however there is still a case. The cake shop owner was private but the rejection of services for some is what is at issue.

By: TimeForChange

TimeForChange — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:05:31 +0000

Currently dealing with this issue. The P. O. said he didn’t care if Facebook is used because monitoring software is on all our PCs (which we pay for monthly). Facebook has a zero tolerance stand. But, the company classes are on Facebook so there is no way to learn or participate. Should be some kind of exception. Ever reaching Facebook could at the very least have an exception or blocking, monitoring or something that allows limited viewing. Stupid.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:47:42 +0000

In reply to Anonymous. I’m equate previous comment to “the banks are too big to fail.” Sure Facbook is private, but they are so dominating the town square that they transcend the average. But if a Judge despises the group that has committed sex crimes, then the difficulty of proving the constitution correct and valid get multiplied exponentially. That gets beyond expensive potentially putting it (the constitution) beyond our reach.

By: David M

David M — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:41:07 +0000

I wonder how white supremacist groups get there clout to be able to take there case to the Supreme Court. What are there maybe 10,000 white supremacists . There are almost a million sex offenders. I know of a case where a guy was put on the registry because of spanking his child. He was in a bad divorce battle with his wife filling charges. There are hundreds of thousands of minor things like this that put you on the list,but they never get known because there not news worthy . But SO can’t even defend themselves on public media like every one else . So the public stays in a blind stopper thinking all on the list are pedophiles and predators. Law inforcement and public media are directly responsible for this ,as are politicians . The idea that you are innocent until proven guilty is a lie. Or that it has to be within a reasonable doubt, again false. No proof, needs to be presented no evidence is needed, only the word of one person against another and who the Jude believes or if you plea who your told the judge will believe. If you kill some one most likely proof is needed to convict be not so with sex offender crimes or so accused crimes,only words this has got to change but we have no voice except this sight thank you FAC