Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 1/12/2021 12:33 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 1/11/2021 6:08 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
>> On 1/11/2021 4:26 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2021 12:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote on 11/01/21 09:14:
> On 1/10/2021 12:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
>> I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he
>> described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to
>> Parler and took 28K followers with him.
>>
>> Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.
>>
>> Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.
>>
>> Free speech anyone?
>>
>> Ray
>
> The right of free speech in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
> only applies to government action, not to the actions of businesses and
> individuals.
>
 I would have thought "free speech" would also give the provider the 
 freedom *NOT* to reply to or even to carry an article!
>>>
>>> Given today's broad definition of "press", that falls under freedom of
>>> the press.  "Press" now seems to include not only print media but also
>>> electronic media.
>>>
>> No it does not. The 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
>> *only* apply to Government action. The 1st applies to Federal Government
>> action, the 14th applies to state action.
>>
>> Regards
>> Keith N. McKenna
>>
> 
> I was replying to the comment that "free speech" gave newspapers and
> electronic platforms the right to carry or refuse to carry an article.
> That is not "free speech"; that is "freedom of the press".  Yes,
> Amendment 1 prevents the federal government from infringing on both free
> speech and freedom of the press, which was extended to the states by
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Someone once said the freedom of the press belongs to he who owns the
> printing press.  It has long been the answer to anyone who objects when
> a newspaper refuses to publish his or her letter to the editor.  Extend
> that to electronic platforms, and that becomes the answer to anyone who
> objects to being censored by Facebook, Twitter, or any other electronic
> medium.
> 
My apologies David. It is what I get for replying so early in the
morning for me. Also as a History major and Political Science minor in
college I decry the woeful ignorance of so many U.S. citizens of the
Constitution. We as a nation would be well served by bringing back the
teaching of Civics in our public and private schools.

Again my apologies
Keith
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[David E. Ross]

On 1/11/2021 6:08 PM, Keith N. McKenna wrote:
> On 1/11/2021 4:26 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
>> On 1/11/2021 12:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> David E. Ross wrote on 11/01/21 09:14:
 On 1/10/2021 12:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
> I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he
> described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to
> Parler and took 28K followers with him.
>
> Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.
>
> Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.
>
> Free speech anyone?
>
> Ray

 The right of free speech in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
 only applies to government action, not to the actions of businesses and
 individuals.

>>> I would have thought "free speech" would also give the provider the 
>>> freedom *NOT* to reply to or even to carry an article!
>>
>> Given today's broad definition of "press", that falls under freedom of
>> the press.  "Press" now seems to include not only print media but also
>> electronic media.
>>
> No it does not. The 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
> *only* apply to Government action. The 1st applies to Federal Government
> action, the 14th applies to state action.
> 
> Regards
> Keith N. McKenna
> 

I was replying to the comment that "free speech" gave newspapers and
electronic platforms the right to carry or refuse to carry an article.
That is not "free speech"; that is "freedom of the press".  Yes,
Amendment 1 prevents the federal government from infringing on both free
speech and freedom of the press, which was extended to the states by
Amendment 14.

Someone once said the freedom of the press belongs to he who owns the
printing press.  It has long been the answer to anyone who objects when
a newspaper refuses to publish his or her letter to the editor.  Extend
that to electronic platforms, and that becomes the answer to anyone who
objects to being censored by Facebook, Twitter, or any other electronic
medium.

-- 
David E. Ross
.

The only reason we have so many laws is that not enough people will do
the right thing.  (© 1997 by David Ross)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Keith N. McKenna]

On 1/11/2021 4:26 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 1/11/2021 12:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> David E. Ross wrote on 11/01/21 09:14:
>>> On 1/10/2021 12:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
 I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he
 described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to
 Parler and took 28K followers with him.

 Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.

 Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.

 Free speech anyone?

 Ray
>>>
>>> The right of free speech in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
>>> only applies to government action, not to the actions of businesses and
>>> individuals.
>>>
>> I would have thought "free speech" would also give the provider the 
>> freedom *NOT* to reply to or even to carry an article!
> 
> Given today's broad definition of "press", that falls under freedom of
> the press.  "Press" now seems to include not only print media but also
> electronic media.
> 
No it does not. The 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
*only* apply to Government action. The 1st applies to Federal Government
action, the 14th applies to state action.

Regards
Keith N. McKenna

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Rinaldi]

On 1/11/21 4:51 PM, Somebody or Other wrote:

Rinaldi wrote:
We have never before had a president who incited a riot against our 
capitol and then congratulated and thanked the perpetrators. So when 
the media platforms ban that criminal, seditious behavior, it's 
because it's criminal and seditious, not because a Republican is 
doing it.


I have heard this allegation several times yet I cannot find a link or 
transcript.  Would you be so kind?


The tweets in question have been taken down. But a quick perusal of the 
news media should give you plenty of information, including direct 
quotes and clips of his speech just before the riot.


We're already way off topic for this NG, so I'll have nothing more to 
say about it. I expect most of the thread will be taken down soon by the 
moderators.


Thought so.

Rinaldi
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Samuel S]

Somebody or Other wrote:

Ray Davison wrote:


Samuel S wrote:

Yet, as many Americans use "Freedom of Speech" is incorrect, as the 
First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referencing 
that Our Government shall not restrict and has no application to 
private entities, as much as many would prefer to apply it to.


The social media companies are not Government, but they are Government 
protected.  Therefore they are only semi-private.  They have entered 
the realm of public utility.  And that invokes the realm of 
discrimination.


So either make them as [liable] as everyone else, or make them not 
discriminate.


There is also the area of monopoly and antitrust, but I have varied 
opinions regarding those.


We have never before had a president who incited a riot against our 
capitol and then congratulated and thanked the perpetrators. So when the 
media platforms ban that criminal, seditious behavior, it's because it's 
criminal and seditious, not because a Republican is doing it.


The same principle applies to abortion clinic bombers -- those people 
get arrested and prosecuted for killing and injuring, not for their 
conservative beliefs. Nobody cares what they believe in the privacy of 
their own hearts.


But in both cases the criminals whine about how unfair it is that they 
should be charged and prosecuted for killing and injuring people, based 
on the familiar legal principle of IOKIYAR. Baloney.


Thank you, I agree.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Somebody or Other]

Rinaldi wrote:

On 1/11/21 2:34 PM, Somebody or Other wrote:

Ray Davison wrote:


Samuel S wrote:

Yet, as many Americans use "Freedom of Speech" is incorrect, as the 
First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referencing 
that Our Government shall not restrict and has no application to 
private entities, as much as many would prefer to apply it to.


The social media companies are not Government, but they are 
Government protected.  Therefore they are only semi-private.  They 
have entered the realm of public utility.  And that invokes the realm 
of discrimination.


So either make them as [liable] as everyone else, or make them not 
discriminate.


There is also the area of monopoly and antitrust, but I have varied 
opinions regarding those.


We have never before had a president who incited a riot against our 
capitol and then congratulated and thanked the perpetrators. So when 
the media platforms ban that criminal, seditious behavior, it's 
because it's criminal and seditious, not because a Republican is doing 
it.


I have heard this allegation several times yet I cannot find a link or 
transcript.  Would you be so kind?


The tweets in question have been taken down. But a quick perusal of the 
news media should give you plenty of information, including direct 
quotes and clips of his speech just before the riot.


We're already way off topic for this NG, so I'll have nothing more to 
say about it. I expect most of the thread will be taken down soon by the 
moderators.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Rinaldi]

On 1/11/21 2:34 PM, Somebody or Other wrote:

Ray Davison wrote:


Samuel S wrote:

Yet, as many Americans use "Freedom of Speech" is incorrect, as the 
First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referencing 
that Our Government shall not restrict and has no application to 
private entities, as much as many would prefer to apply it to.


The social media companies are not Government, but they are Government 
protected.  Therefore they are only semi-private.  They have entered 
the realm of public utility.  And that invokes the realm of 
discrimination.


So either make them as [liable] as everyone else, or make them not 
discriminate.


There is also the area of monopoly and antitrust, but I have varied 
opinions regarding those.


We have never before had a president who incited a riot against our 
capitol and then congratulated and thanked the perpetrators. So when the 
media platforms ban that criminal, seditious behavior, it's because it's 
criminal and seditious, not because a Republican is doing it.


I have heard this allegation several times yet I cannot find a link or 
transcript.  Would you be so kind?


Rinaldi
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Somebody or Other]

Ray Davison wrote:


Samuel S wrote:

Yet, as many Americans use "Freedom of Speech" is incorrect, as the 
First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referencing that 
Our Government shall not restrict and has no application to private 
entities, as much as many would prefer to apply it to.


The social media companies are not Government, but they are Government 
protected.  Therefore they are only semi-private.  They have entered the 
realm of public utility.  And that invokes the realm of discrimination.


So either make them as [liable] as everyone else, or make them not 
discriminate.


There is also the area of monopoly and antitrust, but I have varied 
opinions regarding those.


We have never before had a president who incited a riot against our 
capitol and then congratulated and thanked the perpetrators. So when the 
media platforms ban that criminal, seditious behavior, it's because it's 
criminal and seditious, not because a Republican is doing it.


The same principle applies to abortion clinic bombers -- those people 
get arrested and prosecuted for killing and injuring, not for their 
conservative beliefs. Nobody cares what they believe in the privacy of 
their own hearts.


But in both cases the criminals whine about how unfair it is that they 
should be charged and prosecuted for killing and injuring people, based 
on the familiar legal principle of IOKIYAR. Baloney.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[WaltS48]

On 1/11/21 3:04 PM, Ray Davison wrote:

Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:


The app Parlor has apparently seen a dramatic increase in downloads. 
It is something porn-related.


The ACLU concern was for the "little guy".  Namely, someone like Trump 
could build or buy an alternate means of communicating.  The doctor who 
got banned for talking like a doctor has little or no option.


Ray






--
OS: Ubuntu Linux 18.04LTS - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Ray Davison]

Don Spam's Reckless Son wrote:


The app Parlor has apparently seen a dramatic increase in downloads. It 
is something porn-related.


The ACLU concern was for the "little guy".  Namely, someone like Trump 
could build or buy an alternate means of communicating.  The doctor who 
got banned for talking like a doctor has little or no option.


Ray


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Don Spam's Reckless Son]

Ray Davison wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:


Twitter, Amazon, Google and others are not the government.

I can ban you from my platform if I choose, or filter your posts to 
trash.


I think that discussion is in mozilla.general.

Please read the subject again.  It has nothing to do with "can ban". 
There are people trying to reach these sites and do not know why they 
cannot.  They don't know why they cannot communicate like they have been 
able to.  It is not like they got a memo "take your business elsewhere".


And Apple and Google have banned the Parler phone apps.

OK I did include a free speech note, but even the ACLU has come down 
against this case.


Ray



The app Parlor has apparently seen a dramatic increase in downloads. It 
is something porn-related.


--
spammo ergo sum, viruses courtesy of https://www.nsa.gov/malware/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Ray Davison]

Samuel S wrote:

Yet, as many Americans use "Freedom of Speech" is incorrect, as the 
First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referencing that 
Our Government shall not restrict and has no application to private 
entities, as much as many would prefer to apply it to.


The social media companies are not Government, but they are Government 
protected.  Therefore they are only semi-private.  They have entered the 
realm of public utility.  And that invokes the realm of discrimination.


So either make them as libel as everyone else, or make them not 
discriminate.


There is also the area of monopoly and antitrust, but I have varied 
opinions regarding those.


Ray




___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Samuel S]

Ray Davison wrote:

WaltS48 wrote:


Twitter, Amazon, Google and others are not the government.

I can ban you from my platform if I choose, or filter your posts to 
trash.


I think that discussion is in mozilla.general.

Please read the subject again.  It has nothing to do with "can ban". 
There are people trying to reach these sites and do not know why they 
cannot.  They don't know why they cannot communicate like they have been 
able to.  It is not like they got a memo "take your business elsewhere".


And Apple and Google have banned the Parler phone apps.

OK I did include a free speech note, but even the ACLU has come down 
against this case.


Ray

Yes, you are quite correct about Parler being removed from most major 
platforms and as such, its' members can no longer communicate using that 
app.


Yet, as many Americans use "Freedom of Speech" is incorrect, as the 
First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referencing that 
Our Government shall not restrict and has no application to private 
entities, as much as many would prefer to apply it to.


Individuals who are bummed by the banning can also undertake to create 
their own 'private' platform to host Parler and move forward from there.


It may be that the ACLU does not either fully understand or accept TOS's 
that are set by each Tech company. If they do, then they have yet to 
challenge or issue statements to that effect until this recent incident.


Even here on this forum, there are TOS's which must be followed or one 
can be banned, even for life. Can you believe it?


The memo about Parler was sent via news outlets, rather they were read, 
listened to or believed is a totally different issue.


Thank you for your post, regardless.

bo1953
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[David E. Ross]

On 1/11/2021 12:44 AM, Daniel wrote:
> David E. Ross wrote on 11/01/21 09:14:
>> On 1/10/2021 12:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
>>> I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he
>>> described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to
>>> Parler and took 28K followers with him.
>>>
>>> Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.
>>>
>>> Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.
>>>
>>> Free speech anyone?
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>> The right of free speech in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
>> only applies to government action, not to the actions of businesses and
>> individuals.
>>
> I would have thought "free speech" would also give the provider the 
> freedom *NOT* to reply to or even to carry an article!

Given today's broad definition of "press", that falls under freedom of
the press.  "Press" now seems to include not only print media but also
electronic media.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

The only reason we have so many laws is that not enough people will do
the right thing.  (© 1997 by David Ross)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Daniel]

David E. Ross wrote on 11/01/21 09:14:

On 1/10/2021 12:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:

I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he
described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to
Parler and took 28K followers with him.

Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.

Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.

Free speech anyone?

Ray


The right of free speech in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
only applies to government action, not to the actions of businesses and
individuals.

I would have thought "free speech" would also give the provider the 
freedom *NOT* to reply to or even to carry an article!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 
SeaMonkey/2.53.5.1 Build identifier: 20201115194905


Linux User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) 
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1 Build identifier: 20171015235623

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[David E. Ross]

On 1/10/2021 2:27 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
> WaltS48 wrote:
>>
>> Twitter, Amazon, Google and others are not the government.
>>
>> I can ban you from my platform if I choose, or filter your posts to trash.
>>
>> I think that discussion is in mozilla.general.
>>
> Please read the subject again.  It has nothing to do with "can ban". 
> There are people trying to reach these sites and do not know why they 
> cannot.  They don't know why they cannot communicate like they have been 
> able to.  It is not like they got a memo "take your business elsewhere".
> 
> And Apple and Google have banned the Parler phone apps.
> 
> OK I did include a free speech note, but even the ACLU has come down 
> against this case.
> 
> Ray
> 

What is "this case"?  In what way did the ACLU address "this case"?

-- 

David E. Ross
.

The only reason we have so many laws is that not enough people will do
the right thing.  (© 1997 by David Ross)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Ray Davison]

WaltS48 wrote:


Twitter, Amazon, Google and others are not the government.

I can ban you from my platform if I choose, or filter your posts to trash.

I think that discussion is in mozilla.general.

Please read the subject again.  It has nothing to do with "can ban". 
There are people trying to reach these sites and do not know why they 
cannot.  They don't know why they cannot communicate like they have been 
able to.  It is not like they got a memo "take your business elsewhere".


And Apple and Google have banned the Parler phone apps.

OK I did include a free speech note, but even the ACLU has come down 
against this case.


Ray

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[David E. Ross]

On 1/10/2021 12:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
> I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he 
> described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to 
> Parler and took 28K followers with him.
> 
> Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.
> 
> Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.
> 
> Free speech anyone?
> 
> Ray
> 

The right of free speech in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution
only applies to government action, not to the actions of businesses and
individuals.

-- 

David E. Ross
.

The only reason we have so many laws is that not enough people will do
the right thing.  (© 1997 by David Ross)

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[Sjouke Burry]

On 10.01.21 21:08, Ray Davison wrote:

I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he
described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to
Parler and took 28K followers with him.

Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.

Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.

Free speech anyone?

Ray


speech is free, practising terrorism is not.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Sites you may not be able to access

[WaltS48]

On 1/10/21 3:08 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
I get a news letter from a doctor.  Twitter banned him because he 
described his experience treating people with CCP virus.  He moved to 
Parler and took 28K followers with him.


Now Twitter has banned Trump.  Trump moved to Parler.

Parler used Amazon servers.  Amazon has banned Parler.

Free speech anyone?

Ray



Twitter, Amazon, Google and others are not the government.

I can ban you from my platform if I choose, or filter your posts to trash.

I think that discussion is in mozilla.general.

--
OS: Ubuntu Linux 18.04LTS - Gnome Desktop
https://www.thunderbird.net/en-US/get-involved/


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey