Facebook Upholds Trump Ban; Can't Appeal to the SCOTUS
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Extended \u0026 ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream! legaleagle.link/extras
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino

Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show

Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse

Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon

Please email my agent \u0026 manager at legaleagle@standard.tv

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me ( pxle.me/eagle )

  • John Beck
    John Beck

    Yes, it is Section 230 because the tech companies are getting special treatment and status from the government; but because of the lack of threats to those companies in the current political environment, there is no enforcement mechanism to revisit their status and arrangement. Slick maneuver you tried to pull, Mr. Slip-And-Fall Lawyer! The Section 230 issue is also affected by disparate treatment of the platform commentors--according to whom the big tech companies like or don't like, politically. Let's see what song you sing when the Republicans takes the House and Senate in 2022, and the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. You'll be twisting your rationale like a pretzel when that day comes. Because you have no core principles. You can't even get your affectations right, with your teenage haircut and the over-40 salt-and-pepper beard. You're a joke!

  • Colby Cameron
    Colby Cameron

    I hope someday you understand the truth. Till then you're fighting for the wrong side. May you find happiness in your life despite the weight of the world around you

  • Michael Payne
    Michael Payne

    Isn't fb a private company like a restaurant and they have right to refuse service to anyone the deem a unfit customer

  • james Rivers
    james Rivers

    I keep telling ppl that fb is essentially "private property" and its owner can choose what they want to allow on it. If you don't like it create your own social network

  • Hang10bro

    If it was a left wing politician I’m sure you’d be all 4 it

    • Nope Nope
      Nope Nope

      All for what

  • Charles Wagner
    Charles Wagner

    Facebook is doing the right thing

  • Memelord76_05

    Wouldn’t facebook banning him or anyone else for having different ideologies be a violation of the first amendment? And you can allow people in your house and such not because of the 1A but because it is your property

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Absolutely not. Facebook's a private company, its servers are its own property, it gets to decide what content it wants to host. If you really thought it might violate the 1st amendment to ban someone from facebook then you should probably try to get a better understanding of how it works.

    • Palace Guard
      Palace Guard

      Facebook is a private company so no

  • Stephen Theriot
    Stephen Theriot

    Once again it is not the first amendment. Facebook is a private public space. Much like a park you can't kick somebody out for speech because that violates the first amendment

    • Stephen Theriot
      Stephen Theriot

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer during the occupy wall street protests. Private entities that owned parks attempted to have protesters removed from the park claiming that it was private property. However they were informed that because it was a public park they couldn't have these people removed. Hence the term private public place. A place that while privately owned is required to be open to the public. When you create a platform for public use. I.e a platform that doesn't require you to pay to use. You are essentially creating a privately owned public place

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      That's ridiculous, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not like a public park at all. I suppose you could say it's like a privately owned park, and one of those absolutely can kick someone off their property because of their speech. If someone starts loudly preaching some religion in a privately owned park then they can remove that person.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      That's ridiculous, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not like a public park at all. I suppose you could say it's like a privately owned park, and one of those absolutely can kick someone off their property because of their speech. If someone starts loudly preaching some religion in a privately owned park then they can remove that person.

  • NoSauceOrBroth Child
    NoSauceOrBroth Child

    Its still dumb.

  • Winnipeg Music Lessons
    Winnipeg Music Lessons

    Hunter needs you...

  • space trend Inc taking your breath away
    space trend Inc taking your breath away

    That's why I'm going to start a boycott of Facebook they got Farrakhan banned from Facebook but Trump can say whatever you want

  • Katherine P
    Katherine P

    Love your channel!

  • Into the Midnight
    Into the Midnight

    the only thing I could think of is the first amendment

  • The Grinning Viking
    The Grinning Viking

    There was already a court ruling that Trump could not block other accounts because of the laws governing presidential records. I don't like Trump, but it was amazingly troubling that a private firm decided to deplatform the elected head of the nation while he was still in office. While they don't have to let Trump post there's a pretty clear legal precident for his tweets being counted as presidential records, and taking them down or restricting access is clearly illegal.

  • Sid Arthur Gortimer
    Sid Arthur Gortimer

    The fact that some people really thought you can appeal a facebook ban to the supreme court is hilarious to me. It reminds me of a kid I knew in school who said he'd report a teacher for violating the Geneva Convention when she gave the class detention.


    Review of your vids it is easy to determine your are biased, and don't understand the constitution or the bill of rights. Instead you side with Facebook. You probably have many fake subscribers too.

    • Stephen2462

      @NIN THUG Nope, I just know the difference between free speech and freedom from consequences. Companies have the right to moderate their own platforms, if only due to necessity.

    • NIN THUG
      NIN THUG

      @Stephen2462 so you prefer to side with those that wish to take over control of our country. Makes total sense. You'll understand when the boot is on your neck.

    • Stephen2462

      Right back at you. The first amendment doesn't guarantee a platform.

  • Anxious Snake
    Anxious Snake

    I mean, it's a bit scary that companies can cut your voice from internet spheres and I mean left leaning voices, that happens regularly, but trump's disinformation is good to keep from the public, that will not help much but still.

  • BL4ZE IT
    BL4ZE IT

    Buddy, it doesn’t say anything along the lines of “you can control what people say in your own house” in the first amendment, it only says that the government cannot make speech restricting laws (and a few other closely related things with religion and the press). When it comes to online platforms, section 230 is essentially what allows Facebook to ban the now former President (then President when he was banned).

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      @BL4ZE IT That's an incredibly stupid idea. You really want to make it impossible for a website to ban any of its users? That would mean youtube couldn't ban people who post hardcore porn or Nazi propaganda in the comments of Barney videos. It would mean that if you run a small message board you wouldn't be allowed to ban someone who is repeatedly harassing and abusing your users. It would turn every website into 4chan, and that sounds absolutely terrible. Anyone who thinks about your idea for more than 10 seconds should be able to see how profoundly dumb it is.

    • BL4ZE IT
      BL4ZE IT

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer yeah you’re completely right. Regardless, they are a platform for people to express their own individual ideas, but these platforms treat their users as if they were a publisher through banning speech they deem undesirable. “Big tech” should be treated more like a phone plan of some kind, as they already mostly are (not liable for what individuals say), but with the included inability to ban anyone (based on speech, opinions, and more. There are a few exceptions to this rule, like using the site to commit a crime or directives to commit violent acts, you should get kicked out for that). Places like Twitter act more and more like publishers while hiding behind 230s protections of it being considered a platform, the fact that they act as both is a very big problem in modern society

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Section 230 is what makes it impossible to sue Facebook for something one of its users says, even though Facebook moderate their content and exercise some control over what speech they allow. Without 230, Facebook would still have the right to ban whoever they want, but if they acted on that it would mean they would be liable for illegal things their users post.

  • Milkyyy

    But this man was also saying other things that are clearly first amendment protected weren’t first amendment protected

  • Herobrine 1
    Herobrine 1

    Facebook is not a person so they don't have first right Amendment. Facebook is a thing not a person so they don't have any rights.

    • Stephen2462

      @Herobrine 1 Buisnesses are run by people lol, stop hiding behind dumb semantics.

    • Herobrine 1
      Herobrine 1

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer who cares if their business they're not human it's just a machine. God don't care about the business

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      That's not how it works, corporations do have 1st amendment rights. If you run a small business (or a big business) then that business is 100% protected by the 1st amendment, it has the right to make political statements without risk of punishment. This was a big part of the Citizens United decision, although that case didn't establish corporate personhood or the fact that they have 1st amendment rights, that has been the case for a long time.

  • Johnzzera

    Trump wasn’t banned cause the platform “disagrees” with him. He was banned cause he simply violated their TOS. It’s as simple as that.

  • Agustin Orozco
    Agustin Orozco

    Aren't there some legal issues with Facebook blocking people, I'm not to sure about the specifics of it but I believe Facebook (as well as IRbin, Twitter and alike) claim to be "free spaces" or something like that witch means that anybody can say/post anything but the company themselves is not legally liable, but once they start filtering out people and other view points then they step into the bounds of being a publisher which would make them legally liable for what's on their platform. That's just my vague recollection of it.

  • ShutUp Meg
    ShutUp Meg


  • Maker Of things
    Maker Of things

    That’s the first time I heard him say “we’re not gonna be seeing them in court”

  • Roundhouse

    Charlie Kirk’s face is so small

  • Ballin up 619
    Ballin up 619

    i don’t understand how you possibly defend censorship by saying “the first amendment allows it”

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      @Ballin up 619 You can order someone to leave your house because of something they say. And if they don't leave, you can call the police and tell them someone is trespassing on your property. Depending on local laws, you might even be allowed to punch them in the face as well, after they've refused to leave your property.

    • Ballin up 619
      Ballin up 619

      “you can control who speaks in your house” 😂😂😂 no you cant. If i invite you into my house and punch you in the face for talking i will still get in trouble.

  • misterpk92

    Oh, so descrimination by private companies is back on the table. When the left goes so left they're far right

  • Even West
    Even West

    If Facebook hides under the protection of the law as a platform, they could/ should lose that protection if they're acting as a publisher. But.... that will never happen. Shrug.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      @Even West Then that's a terrible argument. Even if they were applying their rules unevenly and showing bias (and I don't think they are) that wouldn't make them a "publisher" either. You can set up an explicitly partisan forum where you are openly biased against a certain ideology and moderate your site accordingly, and you still wouldn't be considered to be the "publisher" of the things your users say. There are lots of sites that do have biased moderation, but if you try to sue one of them for something one of their users said then the case would get dismissed because of their Section 230 protections.

    • Even West
      Even West

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer that's what I was referring to. However, the argument comes when the rules are applied unevenly. When that happens, they arguably show bias and therefore become a publisher. I don't believe that will actually happen but that's the argument.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Since section 230, a site is never considered to be the "publisher" of something one of its users posts. That applies to sites that moderate their content as well as ones that don't.

  • ¿Bruh?

    Honestly, what gives big tech their power is the terms and services that everyone agrees to and never reads. If you actual read it, there is a provision that allows them to ban you at any time for any reason.

  • Crazy wyvern
    Crazy wyvern

    We have already seen them in court, many times, and it's going to happen again

  • Edixa SanchezPacheco
    Edixa SanchezPacheco

    But Facebook is all of its users; so if Facebook is its own house its time to “vacate” the house 😆

  • picamike

    Remember though, Facebook banned Trump, and many other right wing individuals, because of their politics. Facebook acts like a publisher and should not be able to ban people because they dislike their politics. If Trump broke the rules, then you must apply those rules to everyone, otherwise you're banning people for their political views.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      ​@picamike This conservative victim complex that has developed over the last few years is absolutely pathetic. Unless you think blatant bigotry is "the right wing point of view", then no major social media sites are discriminating against you. You can advocate for a flat tax or privatized social security and nobody will ban you for that. Facebook does have a rule saying they can remove any of your posts or ban your account at any time and for any reason, almost all websites do. When you (and anyone else, including Trump) created your account you signed a ToS saying exactly that. They choose to apply their own internal guidelines when they decide to do that, but they're under no obligation to. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of posts that should have been removed according to their rules, I've reported a few calls for violence coming from the right and the left and had nothing happen about it. And again, even if they did discriminate against people because of their political ideology, that would be totally legal and it wouldn't remove their Section 230 protections against litigation.

    • picamike

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer Actually, there is tons of evidence supporting the argument that Facebook is bias, and the reason it's wrongful for them to do it is because they're limiting the ability for people to access the right wing point of view. Facebook would need a rule saying they could ban whoever they wanted for no reason, but they don't have a rule like that. Instead, they ban them under a different rule which is barely applicable to the situation, however don't ban people on the left who do the same, but way more extreme. For an example, you can get banned from Facebook for calling someone Karen, however making death threats, making racist remarks against white people, sexism against men, or any comments about non-minorities is a-okay.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Even if they are banning people for their political views (they aren't), that would be completely legal. Political ideology isn't a protected class, you can hang a big "no liberals" or "no conservatives" sign outside your store, or on your website, and that wouldn't break any laws. There are plenty of conservative or liberal forums that ban people with a different ideology. The whole "publisher" vs "platform" distinction has been irrelevant since 1996, Section 230 made it so that a site is never considered to be the "publisher" of anything one of its users posts, regardless of whether the site moderates its content or not.

  • Gaudencio

    Conservatives and republicans really be putting feelings over facts

  • Daniel Rodriguez
    Daniel Rodriguez

    That’s actually a violation to our first amendment. As citizens we should not be silenced in a SOCIAL MEDIA(was made for people to speak) platform... (not a house) you’re example is extremely misleading & erroneous. These big tech companies only allow people to speak freely as long as it goes with a narrative according to the left. That is abuse of power from big tech. When it strips us away from out 1st amendment then government should intervene.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      @Daniel Rodriguez Social media sites were created by their owners to make money, they're not some public service provided by the government. When you sign up to one of these sites, you sign a ToS that states they can remove any of your posts or ban your account at any time and for any reason. When you got banned from Xbox Live for screaming racist or homophobic slurs into your mic, that wasn't a violation of your freedom of speech either.

    • Daniel Rodriguez
      Daniel Rodriguez

      @Jesse those platforms were created for the people to speak... to communicate. As Americans we have the right of free speech. Yet these big tech companies don’t respect that. I don’t think you’re dumb enough to not see it. I just think you belief they have the right to do such things. The problem comes in when they’re censoring a certain type of people (conservatives) simply for being conservative.

    • Jesse

      Ever play video games online? You dont own your characters on those games. If they wanted, the company that made the game can delete your character for any reason. If they think your world of warcraft character looks stupid, they can delete him, ban you or whatever. They own the servers. No rights would be violated. It's the government that cant silence you and you cant be silenced on public property. Unless you're using hate speech, promoting violence or disturbing the peace. Then you can be silenced even on public property

    • Jesse

      How is it hard to understand? They own the servers, it's their property. They can kick people out of their property. The judges trump appointed to the supreme court dont see a 1st amendment violation and neither do lawyers. Only idiots that dont know shit about it think so

  • Draco Lost
    Draco Lost

    Soo is there a pdf or website i could send a few people. I cause im getting real tired of this shit talking in the house...

  • TheDerpyDog

    I swear politicians are just stupid people with power.

  • Aaron Montgomery
    Aaron Montgomery

    Since facebook is considered a semi public space (it is both marketed as such and has been affirmed as such by the government) isn't it covered by the first amendment as in individuals using it are also covered? I understand that there is legal justification that trump should stay banned but what of other people? There are many people that Facebook supports (more far left leaning ideologist) that go against their policies pertaining to calls of violence yet little if anything is done to those people. My question becomes is why is it when I report such people nothing ever happens?

  • mikey Haaich
    mikey Haaich

    Yes it's legal, but it shows a whole lot about the left.

  • tenou213

    Studies show there is some overlap between this body of people and the sort who both support the military and hate taxes. As if the military was run on thank yous and terrible bumper stickers.

  • katie kawaii
    katie kawaii

    See, Facebook isn't *all* bad

  • Danny Cochran
    Danny Cochran

    IRbin Shorts were a mistake...

  • Al As 57
    Al As 57

    As social media platforms become so big, they rival traditional institutions, does that mean society will just be beholden to these corporations?

  • Dan Thomas
    Dan Thomas

    Yeah section 230 protects Facebook as a platform not a publisher. So no, they do not have a right to discriminate based on the first amendment. You would think a lawyer would know the difference between platforms and publishers, but obviously this guy just spreads left wing propaganda

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Section 230 does the *exact opposite* of what you think it does, you literally could not possibly be more wrong. Before that law was written, sites that remove certain content were deemed to be publishers and were liable for things their users posted. The whole point of 230 was to change that, now a site is never considered to be the publisher of something one of its users says, regardless of whether they moderate their content or not. It was written specifically to allow sites to remove posts and ban users without being liable for their users' speech.

  • Bryar Rogers
    Bryar Rogers

    I mean regardless if you like Trump or hate Trump you need to understand that freedom of speech is a thing he can say whatever he wants who are you to play God and decide what he can and can't say. Especially Twitter

  • Brandon Griggs
    Brandon Griggs

    No where in the first amendment does it say you get to control what people say in your house. In fact, the 1st amendment is completely in regards to a government in relation to its citizens. Read it. Sure you can kick them out of your house because its your property, but there is no extra action you can take there based on what they say. After watching a lot of these shorts ive come to realize that so many of them straight up lie, or mislead you to think something, when all you need is a google search to see its not true. Tiktok is going to be our downfall.

  • God Is Alive Globalism Is Dead
    God Is Alive Globalism Is Dead

    Lol no. Facebook is a public platform. Therefore it is exactly the first amendment that fb or other social media don’t have the power to ban ppl Bc they don’t like their speech. This guy is a clown and completely wrong. The Supreme Court should step in Bc the largest companies in the world are violating the first amendment in the US. That’s simple

  • Kaesaar

    That would make sense... IF Facebook wasnt govt subsidized, which it and all the other big tech platforms usually are. If a business or private entity is subsidized by the govt it should be held accountable like any other govt entity. Govt entities such as colleges for example cannot discriminate against someones race, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion etc. Doing so would be a legal buttfuck for these institutions, same thing here with facebook.

  • N G
    N G

    Time to delete Facebook, after I transfer my game save files

  • NPC#68282

    Imo there should be a new law written against discrimination on social media. Letting giant corporations like facebook and tweeter decide what can be said is so dystopian it hurts

  • Toaster of Doom
    Toaster of Doom

    "Its not an issue that can be brought to the supreme court. Also, this is a constitutional matter, which is the exact type of matter that the supreme court is set up to handle." While I respect your profession and your professional opinion, I think you might have opined beyond your right here, or at the very least informed us of previous rulings where it was decided they had the right to discriminate under the 1st amendment specifically, since nothing in it explicitly says people even have the right to control what is said in our own homes, and you didn't appeal to common sense or basic morality, but the first amendment in particular.

  • John Kersch
    John Kersch

    I love how purposefully misinterpreting quotes is a part of your strategy. You're clearly such a lawyer, its annoying; like lawyers be.

    • Royal Blue Diamond
      Royal Blue Diamond

      He’s stating the law, no twisting quotes. That is literally what they said

  • Cactyne Mann
    Cactyne Mann

    love it when (privately owned by 2 trillionares) government 2 decides to step in and unperson me

  • Jasper

    ah yes he broke TOS so let me go babyrage to supreme court

  • hudson urruttia
    hudson urruttia

    That verified dude really heard people say that this was the 'supreme court of facebook' and took it at face value

  • Spritemanplus

    I think a business should be able to ban whoever they want for stupid reasons if they choose but I'ma choose not to use that business if it wants to censor one of my presidents so I haven't used Facebook for a bit now, life has definitely improved lol

  • Holden Fricks
    Holden Fricks

    Social media is a free speech platform, banning someone you don’t like should be illegal. If denying making someone a cake is illegal, banning people you disagree with should be even more illegal

  • Offline Pacifist Online Fussifist
    Offline Pacifist Online Fussifist

    People who want the Supreme Court to police private space are asking for socialism. It's reasonable. If we expect our values to be enforced in a private setting, you actually believe in our values.

  • Neil Sunstrum
    Neil Sunstrum

    Imagine being such a simple and pathetic coward that you actually agree with big tech censorship, suppression, bullying, Demonetization etc. the government needs to disband the monopoly that is big tech. We are headed down a path to revolutionary war and perhaps even Civil War if not World War III, just a matter of time. It’s quite simple… You follow the rules and regulations of the country including free-speech in individual rights or you get TickTocked and Burnt to the ground

    • Neil Sunstrum
      Neil Sunstrum

      @Cowsy not to all of it no, first minute. Heard all I needed to.

    • Cowsy

      lmao did you even listen

  • Jacob Camarillo
    Jacob Camarillo

    Classic boot licking

  • Laura Bevars
    Laura Bevars

    Actually sunshine since Facebook has started to describe itself as a platform for political activism it removes itself lately from the protection of the first amendment and falls squarely under 230. That’s the basis for the legal inquiries that it is currently undergoing. As well as the multiple lawsuits that have been filed against it. None which have been thrown out of court. The law is never as cut and dry as you try to make it sound for Tik Tok views.

    • Cowsy

      "sunshine" lmfao i love sorting by new

  • Electric Turtle
    Electric Turtle

    I see the communists, socialists, authoritarians,legal experts, and "mUh aNaRcHy" have all congregated in this comment section.

  • Matt Drees
    Matt Drees

    These are the type of people that are okay with big tech monopolizing and censoring the public square because orange man bad. Won’t be long until you are getting censored too.

    • Matt Drees
      Matt Drees

      @Cowsy he ignores the fact that there is a serious question about the legality of the censorship in general. Social media is the modern day public square. Not to mention the difference between being a platform and a publisher.

    • Cowsy

      hes... explaining legal aspects of a legal matter.

  • Oregon Weekend Warrior
    Oregon Weekend Warrior

    I don't know about these actions though, when you have a non government entity that has the power to silence the president of the united states, or any leader, person or other entity that they don't agree with, that seems like to much power and an actual threat to democracy, do I agree with trump or any radicals conservative, no, but what happens when they start silencing voices that are fighting for good, now a common rebuttal to this would be well just make your own platform, but I reiterate, the big tech oligarchs are too powerful, if the right or conservatives, who did try to make their own platform, speak out about this they get shut down. Parker for example was supposed to be the twitter alternative for conservative voices, but Amazon took it off their servers because they didn't agree with them, how is there supposed to be discourse and free thought and speech in this country if you can't express your feelings on the biggest social media platforms. Now obviously telling a private company that they can and cannot do certain things pertaining to their beliefs is illegal, but then the argument that you should get paid more by these companies and you should force them to give you benefits falls upon deaf ears. I guess it's up to people to decide what they want, do they want protection from hateful things, or do they want corrupt tyrants being able to control what is heard by the vast majority of people, also the more you allow big government and big tech to dictate what you can say, the more your freedoms are stripped away, just a though

    • Oregon Weekend Warrior
      Oregon Weekend Warrior

      @Cowsy the problem isn't that they block people, they block people who don't have the same views as them, same with Twitter, and yes it's their right as a private company, but eventually every ideology that doesn't agree with the tech giants will be quashed, and it doesn't matter which side you are on, or who you are that is extremely dangerous and similar situations are how Nazism, stalinism, Marxism, and communism, and fascism have killed millions of people. By turning the majority of a population against another large part of the population and saying they aren't worth a second view. The government's whole job is to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, which means they create laws that protect our freedoms and our lives, so at what point can you say enough is enough. Because someday it will bite everyone in the butt and everyone is going to regret giving that much power to anyone, people complain they don't get paid enough and don't have good benefits and in the same breath say that it's ok for a private company to make decisions on who it allows on their platform. And normally I would agree, but social media is the biggest spreader of news and information in the world now, meaning that if they change the narrative or push their agenda and there is no one allowed to attack wrong thinking then who will stand up to the people that will destroy the world with it. And I know it sounds doomsday, but I mean come on everyone always says that it's over exaggeration, until millions of people are dead because of it, it's happened throughout history and yet we still choose to ignore the warning signs

    • Cowsy

      in the eyes of facebook, they can control who says what because its thief platform. trump chose to be on facebook, agreed to the tos and then broke the tos. the rules still apply to politicians

  • Cole Black
    Cole Black

    I'm not a big fan of these social media platforms censoring people, even if I don't want to hear what those people have to say. In a lot of ways, these platforms have become the "public square." Sure, you can still get a sturdy wooden box and head out to the physical public square of your town or city. You can rant to the sky about whatever you want out there. But that's not really what modern people do, is it? We go on Facebook, Twitter, IRbin, etc. Often times we go to these places because it's physically safer to do so. Nowadays it's relatively common to get assaulted while on a soapbox outside in public, usually by someone who doesn't like what you have to say. This is true whether you're liberal, conservative, or any ideology.

    • Cole Black
      Cole Black

      @Cowsy I get what you're saying, but I guess I didn't make my thoughts perfectly clear. What I mean is that I don't think these platforms should set their own rules, merely follow the laws related to speech. They ALSO should not be held accountable for what people say on their platforms, any more than you'd hold a city accountable for some guy jumping up and down shouting racist slurs in the town square.

    • Cowsy

      he broke the tos. its not censorship, its applying the rules that are set!

  • Flowers inherhair
    Flowers inherhair

    So am I allowed to ban groups I don't like from coming into my restaurant? I can throw out, say, Mitch McConnell because he said things with which I disagree? Maybe all Republicans since they support the former president? This is the First Amendment?

    • Flowers inherhair
      Flowers inherhair

      @Cowsy So if my Terms Of Service are posted at my restaurant, I can ban anyone or any group I want?

    • Cowsy

      um, the point is that its not censorship if dt broke the terms of service

    • Computerolegy


  • Shiba The Noob
    Shiba The Noob

    Stop the cap

  • dyscea


  • Mr. Davis
    Mr. Davis

    It's why I don t Facebook

  • Cisco Renteria
    Cisco Renteria

    This is unfair. Imagine a city where 95% of the buildings we’re owned by one person, and they could choose who set up shop in those buildings. And anyone who had a different political view wouldn’t be allowed to set up shop. This is essentially what Facebook, Twitter and IRbin have done, they have made a monopoly on the social network platform and pick and choose who can post on their platforms. Where else are people supposed to go to communicate their ideas or views to the rest of the world?

  • C H
    C H

    Tech giants like that shouldn’t have those rights. They shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who they want to ban. It gives them way too much power.

    • Cowsy

      ...trump agreed to be on facebook and follow the tos. then he broke them. you care so much about freedom but not when it doesnt fit your agenda. wow


    This lawyer is a communist. He literally ssys the craziest shit.

  • Cubing Storm
    Cubing Storm

    There still needs to be regulations on holding companies accountable to what they say. People are up in arms about Facebook not not collecting personal data but when Facebook consistently censors conservatives viewpoints and that's concerning because the majority of places you get news are increasingly more democratic and no one asks why. Censoring ideas off of platforms and proposing that they make their own (and think about how long it took Facebook to get to where it is) is not a good solution because it further drives a wedge between the two main political parties and is only going to breed more resentment. Not everyone manages resentment well, see BLM riots during what were supposed to be peaceful protests.

  • Butter_donnut213

    "You can control who says what in your own house" when I buy a house I'm getting a doormat that says "your required to call me mr cool"

  • Sintrias

    you act like it's cut and dry. it isn't. you can't kick someone off of a platform just because you don't like them. that's why we have laws against discrimination. you may be right that facebook can keep trump off their platform, but your reasoning is short sighted.

    • Cowsy

      they didnt do it because they didnt like him. they did it because he broke the terms you people are brain dead

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      @Sintrias I agree that the house analogy isn't good, a better one would be a notice board in a small shop or gas station. Imagine you own a store that has a cork notice board inside it, intended for people to put up ads selling piano lessons or putting puppies up for adoption. Then you see someone putting something you don't like on there, like an ad selling porn or encouraging people to join the KKK. As the store owner, you have every right to take down that ad, and ban the person who put it up from using the notice board again. The board is your property, and you get to decide what speech you want it used to promote, that's your 1st amendment right. This situation is 100% analogous, Facebook's servers are its own property and it gets to decide what it wants to host. If the government made a law saying that they were obliged to host certain speech, then that would be the 1st amendment violation.

    • Sintrias

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer i didn't say protected class discrimination applies here. i said that his explanation was short sighted. the first amendment protects all citizens, not just certain people. he compared the facebook platform to a home. that's not a fair comparison. i don't make money from people visiting my home. if i don't like someone of a certain race or nationality or whatever, i can keep them from entering my home without breaking any law. the same does not apply to businesses. facebook has the right to keep trump off their platform because the discrimination is against an unprotected class, but this lawyer's explanation sucked. i honestly think keeping trump off social media only hurts the platforms though.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      That's not what discrimination is. If you own a store, you 100% have the right to kick out one of your customers just because you don't like him. Since the Civil Rights Act, you aren't allowed to kick someone out of your store because of their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Even if you think Trump was banned because of his political ideology, that would be allowed as well.

  • Crogy 92
    Crogy 92

    Ban Trump yet radicals are still allowed to have Social media. Unfortunately, since Twitter and FB are private entities they can ban whoever they chose based on their "ethical" points of view. Some military commander was relieved the other day thanks to saying Marxism is penetrating the military. I love the way the country is going!

  • Thrawnmulus

    You know, trump is the only president where people seem to feel real comfortable saying "former" president. Every event where Clinton or W or Obama go they're refered to as "President B/C/O"

  • AngryDog GoodBoy
    AngryDog GoodBoy

    I just been banned from Facebook for 7 days for commenting. "well we were naive and men are trash apparently" in a meme group. If I need that harsh a sentence. Yes Donald Trump should definitely be perma banned for all of his hate speech, Bullying, death threats and spreading of misinformation. Ban him from everything.

  • TaZe Alex
    TaZe Alex

    U should make one about bidans son

  • Slushi Simcambi
    Slushi Simcambi

    If Facebook is going to only curate liberal views on their platform and not evenly apply their own agreed upon rules, then they deserve to be legally treated like a publishing service and not have the protections of a platform they currently benefit from. I think that’s the main point from the right.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      And it's a stupid point that shows how little anyone who makes it knows about the law. Since section 230, sites are not treated as "publishers" of content their users post, and aren't liable for them, regardless of whether they curate their content or not. The point of the law was to allow sites to moderate their content without losing the protections of a "platform".

  • Eric Furman
    Eric Furman

    A website is not a house. Let alone a website whose point is for people to connect and communicate.

    • Nathan L
      Nathan L

      @Chicken Leg big tech bootlicker

    • Eric Furman
      Eric Furman

      @Chicken Leg You’d think that’s fair, but that logic doesn’t apply for all private businesses. Discrimination based on the premise of different political beliefs is a slippery slope.

    • Chicken Leg
      Chicken Leg

      It’s a private business they can do whatever they want

  • Mark Bradford
    Mark Bradford

    It was sure brilliant of them to keep this a free platform in order to control most of the world by keeping it 'in-house.' It's almost worth everyone paying some small monthly bill so you can say what the hell you want!

  • Emily Russo
    Emily Russo

    They have every right to do this given how big of a threat his fake news proved to be. People who support Trump are the very reason he's getting punished for spreading fake news. If y'all didn't believe his every word and realized how much he was scamming they wouldn't need to ban him, but it becomes a threat when the commander in chief can say literally anything he wants and can cause a riot with a few little lies. This is on you guys, don't blame the liberals for this one lmao

  • austin oehring
    austin oehring

    Y'all toxic in the comments. It's horrible to think you'll degrade somebody because they fall under a certain category, whether it be conservative or white or 'they had this thought, or they said that thing'. Politics isn't that hard to understand, what is hard to understand is the several millions of individual voices out here, who the government tries to appease. Why is it so hard to distinguish these millions of voices? Because each take is different. So here we stand, divided. Each and every one of us. Yet we as a species want to label everybody into broad categories. And then point out those categories as overly bad. Could we just stop doing that? Look at every single person as an individual. It's the society we live in now. We're divided, not united.

  • Potato

    The internet: “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man!”

  • That's still TBD
    That's still TBD

    Yea the first amendment! There should be censorship of right wing ideas, anything regarding the little decision day of 2020 and how 186 instances of last minute law changing and video taped hidden ballots and stacks of votes with a 100 to 0 ratio some crazy people out there think suggests fraud, censor anything anyone out there is offended by or can pretend to be offended by for attention, and speaking of amendments I hope the second amendment burns in heck. Other than that tho, you guys....like...the first amendment is like...super important and junk. Sorry I mean you genderinclusive persons.

  • jude

    Lol lovin this content more than mcdonalds fries

  • China Wong
    China Wong

    I mean they let terrorists on Facebook

  • Michael Cox
    Michael Cox

    The 1st Amendment gives rights to private citizens. Facebook however is a public traded company with a self proclaimed public platform. Being a public forum who does not control what is said on their platform is what gives them Section 230 coverage. The moment they start editorializing the content on their public forum, it stops being a public forum and becomes a publication. Thus they should lose that protection.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      @Michael Cox Are you kidding? You clearly don't understand the 1st amendment, or basically anything else. All 230 did was make it so that a website can't be sued for something one of its users posts, regardless of whether that website moderates its content or not. It has nothing to do with free speech. It's a great law, without it the internet as we know it wouldn't exist. If not for 230 protections, a site would either have to remove every single piece of user content that might possibly break any laws (which is impossible for a big site) or just not moderate their content at all. Without 230, if youtube chose to delete a pornographic video someone uploaded, it would mean youtube could be sued if someone defames a celebrity in a comment. Essentially the only user generated content sites that could exist would be 4chan type places, and that sounds absolutely terrible.

    • Michael Cox
      Michael Cox

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer If that is true, then it would make Section 230 itself a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, and thus instantly unconstitutional as it would be legislation made to stifle individual free speech. That being the case it should open up not only the platform, but the very government for massive lawsuits.

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Section 230 does the *exact opposite* of what you think it does, you literally could not possibly be more wrong about it. What you described was how it worked *before* 230. The point of section 230 was to change that, now sites are never considered to be the "publishers" of speech their users post, regardless of whether they moderate their content. The whole reason it was written was to allow sites to moderate their content without opening themselves up to litigation.

    • Michael Cox
      Michael Cox

      @Let's Drag The Cave 2017 Alright, however Facebook is a unique case. Especially if they wish to fall in line with Section 230. To do so they must give no more censorship than the phone company does to your phone calls. Otherwise they are controlling what is on their platform in the way an editor does, thus leaving them outside Section 230's protection. Also, as a public platform their website serves effectively the same function as a town square did in the time of the founders, meaning that speech upon it can further not be impeded by the government. I am perfectly willing to let them function as a publication and edit the site's content as long as they no longer receive Section 230 protection and take legal responsibility for that content

    • Let's Drag The Cave 2017
      Let's Drag The Cave 2017

      Citizens united V. FEC ruled that corporations are people under the constitution of the united states and thus are given protections under the first amendment.

  • Grog Grueslayer
    Grog Grueslayer

    Yet the first amendment is being violated by Facebook by stopping Trump's right of free speech. Not allowing a customer to buy things because they don't wear a shirt or shoes is different than stopping them from saying things you don't like. Freedom of speech means allowing all speech even opinions you don't like... stopping somebody from saying them is just what Facebook is doing to Trump.

    • Bull Terrier Gaming
      Bull Terrier Gaming

      @Sid Arthur Gortimer that was actually a very good analogy even a dumb person like me could understand

    • Sid Arthur Gortimer
      Sid Arthur Gortimer

      Imagine you own a store that has a cork notice board inside it, intended for people to put up ads selling piano lessons or putting puppies up for adoption. Then you see someone putting something you don't like on there, like an ad selling porn or encouraging people to join the KKK. As the store owner, you have every right to take down that ad, and ban the person who put it up from using the notice board again. The board is your property, and you get to decide what speech you want it used to promote, that's your 1st amendment right. This situation is 100% analogous, Facebook's servers are its own property and it gets to decide what it wants to host. If the government made a law saying that they were obliged to host certain speech, then *that* would be the 1st amendment violation.

  • C.M ruler of run-on's
    C.M ruler of run-on's

    Digital Property is still Property!

  • Tangerine Titan
    Tangerine Titan

    Thank you Legal Eagle

  • abbin nibba
    abbin nibba

    Some of these comments are just poking fun, but some of these people really just hate tromp and hate republicans in general. Censorship is okay until it affects someone you like, right?

  • Jake Lee
    Jake Lee

    Honest question, what about a public sidewalk? Isn't Facebook a "public" platform? Idk much about all this and really don't care, just curious about that.

    • Jake Lee
      Jake Lee

      @Dath123 that makes sense. Thanks

    • Dath123

      They're a private entity, and basically what that means is they aren't government owned. So as a privately owned business, they can refuse their services for basically any reason (the only exceptions being ones covered by discrimination laws).

  • billy velasquez
    billy velasquez

    No longer use facebook......

  • D

    Trying to explain anything to the left is pointless because a third of them are too stupid to understand a third don't care to understand and a third hate this country so much they purposley sabotage every chance we have of Uniting and support the scum trying to divide and conquer us.

  • Pumpkin Boyo
    Pumpkin Boyo

    Also the fact that normal people say the same, get banned, and no one lifts a finger

  • Alvin Zhang
    Alvin Zhang

    ??? So basically 1st applied to big tech but not to public? That’s kind of biased man. People just can’t have opinions nowadays

    • Chicken Leg
      Chicken Leg

      That’s some good bait

  • kenjackben

    The first amendment does not apply to Google a corporat entity they have no right to freedom of association they have no right to freedom of speech the Constitution is a restraint on government and government alone it describes the federal government's obligation to its citizens

  • Mr Manchu
    Mr Manchu

    The first amendement is a negative right, meaning that it is by in action on another persons part, you have you right, not by you actively squashing others first amendment right. The notion that you can stifle talk in your own house isn’t a first amendement right, that’s just controlling. Stop the CLICKBAIT, and at least try to act unbiased.

  • Poe Hernandez
    Poe Hernandez

    Fascism is the name