Facebook needs to go to the supreme court for censorship. The more open a company is to the public, the more constitutional rights people invited in are allowed to have.
In Marsh Vs Alabama "The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in."
They should legally have no right to censor people's freedom of speech.
view the rest of the comments →
Valkaria ago
Facebook needs to go to the supreme court for censorship. The more open a company is to the public, the more constitutional rights people invited in are allowed to have.
They should legally have no right to censor people's freedom of speech.
Broc_Lia ago
Yeah... that ruling was also bullshit. The idea that property rights vanish if you get popular is just another marxist attack on independence.