(08-06-2018 08:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 08:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 07:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The ban is about nothing more than shutting Jones up.

It brings up interesting questions about some of these platforms and their need to be regulated.

what branch or body would regulate???

certainly you're not suggesting we need another branch of shite.....

I really don't understand how this isn't a clear cut 1st amendment issue that could tie into anti-trust violations by attempting political coercion.....

you're the lawyer.....help me out how that isn't the crux what you argue in defense....

Executive branch through the administrative apparatus.

Trust laws don't really have much application to anything regarding politics.

What we are talking about is more along the lines of radio, railroads, etc.

while I somewhat agree....

this is becoming more and more about censoring political speech via a delivery mechanism that is essentially a monopoly.....also, with radio the knob can always be changed to find varying opinions....

on the internet (where most traffic is these days), if a handful of sites control 95+% of viewership and begin to censor based on political perspective, that introduces an entire other argument that has already been legislated as illegal.....

this one's going to be very interesting to watch play out....

True.

But, like the railroads before, we have to address the issue of market access as a society.

We are already there when it comes to the internet in my opinion and ISPs should be treated as a public utility.