2020-12-10 14:13:47 UTC
Will YOUTUBE delete content alleging sexual assaults? So nothing from a
NO, Youtube, like Facebook has taken on the role of the public square
Judicial hearing like the Kavanaugh hearing could be viewed or heard?
Alleged crimes are all the same, they're all alleged.
Isn't this also infringing/abridging our RIGHT to petition the
government for redress and the RIGHT to peaceably assemble in the PUBLIC
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* .
Certainly we have a Constitutional RIGHT to address our GOVERNMENT about
a government election that has in our estimation been stolen. And BIG
TECH is forbidding us from engaging in it on a platform that is
protected by a GOVERNMENT LAW law so long as it doesn't edit or censor
or PUBLISH the content as it's own. But instead allows PUBLIC activity
on their PLATFORM.
You got a court decision that contradicts US Code?The special law that gives them special indemnity is unconstitutional
since it removes FREE SPEECH by removing our ability to say what we want
and to redress our *grievances* and to post our petition on their TOWN
SQUARE. And that is done by allowing the BIG TECH companies to edit and
censor our free speech without our being able to seek due process to
secure our rights, in essence it gives the BIG TECH companies the RIGHT
to slander us and to silence us without being sued but we can't sue them
to get our RIGHT to free speech enforced.
And so the *Congress made an unconstitutional law that infringed on our
*RIGHT to free speech* in order to indemnify the BIG TECH companies
which allows BIG TECH to have a monopoly on free speech where they can
edit and censor our FREE SPEECH as a legal agent (created by law) on
behalf of the government. And that's *clearly unconstitutional* .
The law may be able to indemnify the BIG TECH companies if they don't
edit or censor but the moment they decided to edit and censor and become
PUBLISHERS and "correct" the content of others the BIG TECH companies
began enforcing limits on free speech. And that free speech was never
allowed to be edited and censored under CONSTITUTIONAL law, because it
would infringe on FREE SPEECH.
The short way to say it is that the #230 law that protects BIG TECH
can't limit our FREE SPEECH in the process, it has to be either/or,
because they are mutually exclusive when it comes to BIG TECH being a
PUBLISHER. They either limit our free speech as a PUBLISHER or they do
NOT have any protections by the #230 law. It's a matter of FREE SPEECH
ans a matter of peaceable assembly, with redress to the government.
Either BIG TECH can edit and censor and PUBLISH or BIG TECH can be
indemnified against law suits, but it can't have BOTH the POWER TO EDIT
AND CENSOR AND BE A PUBLISHER, and the indemnity that goes with it being
a government protected (GSE) Government sponsored entity.
The legal carve out could be called a violation of the "EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE" since it allows BIG TECH to have unequal RIGHTS. And the
Constitution is the supreme law, and it says we have equal protection of
TAKE THE RED PILL
TAKE THE RED PILL