You should read the "terms of service", they do not stand by them. Can you identify what Facebooks "community standards" are? Suppose an entity takes government money like the Texasags forum. As far as that goes you go ahead and let them tell you what you can say or not say. What about them treating people differently. If a company takes government money they should have to respect our constitutional rights.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/...ubsidizing-facebook-and-the-next-bubble/

But you also have the right to keep your head in the sand, let private individuals guide the narrative at your expense. Remember when the first amendment is exhausted the second becomes your last line of defense, personally I prefer free speech to chaos and gunfire in the streets.

Bingo.

and the same goes for jobs requiring vaccines. If you don't want to vax but the employer mandates it (not the feds) then either get the stick or move on. It isn't rocket science. This is america where individuals can do what they want (for the most part) with what they own. If you don't like it, go get something you own and do what you want with it.[/quote]

Off topic a bit but you really feel that an employer has the right to force you to get a shot? Especially one that has killed over 20 thousand people? You feel an employer "owns" you? You ought to stick to Buckeye and dispense with the Texas part of your screen name.
[/quote]

Not too terribly off topic, but yes a company does have the right to tell you what you need to do for employment in Texas. I am a business owner> If I wanted to, I could enforce a vaccine mandate. The fact I don't is my choice, but I have the right to do so in Texas as a business owner.

If I want to "censor" my employees on their social media I have the right to do that as well. Doesn't mean I do, but I can fire someone for what is said on social media. It isn't rocket science, it is just reality.

If you feel differently and have proof I can not do this, please let me know. [/quote]

Well suppose I took your "censorship" personally? Made you pay for violating my rights? There are such things as civil rights attorneys. I obviously would not work for anyone with a philosophy of control. Odd that you seem proud of your "power".

I thought the controversy with pedophilia and other subjects being required reading is over parents’ objections to certain subjects being taught in schools. There are books for children being included in curriculum that depict graphic oral sex, and parents felt it was inappropriate for elementary and middle school children to be reading it in a book. That’s a lot different than banning pedophilia in a novel.

Child pornography is banned, because children can’t consent. But a novel that has a scene where a child is raped by an adult is most likely going to be protected speech. Arguing whether it’s appropriate for children of a certain age, or whether it should be taught in school at all, isn’t a first amendment issue. It’s parents trying to parent. If the government were to ban a book entirely, that would be a violation of the first amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater was never law. It was a remark made by a Supreme Court justice and had nothing to do with the case he was discussing. The case that was being decided was overturned later by the Supreme Court.



https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Before I decide there is no reason to try to reason with the unreasonable the point I am trying to make is forum moderation like Facebook does creates sheep. It reinforces there stupidity when they see people get banned who are trying to get truth into the conversation. It makes them believe the leftist propaganda as anyone who dares disagree is blocked or banned. This is very dangerous as it creates masses of idiots, never underestimate the power of large groups of idiots.

I agree with all of that, but when you state that first amendment protections apply to posting on Facebook, you sound like an idiot.

You are correct about the writing part. I was thinking child porn and such things and got mixed up and wrote print and publish. Was specifically thinking of the stuff josh duggar got busted for, as my daughter has followed that closely, but got twisted in my head of the library books. You are absolutely correct about those books. I was not trying to equate banning books in libraries with 1A issues. I used that second paragraph to address the part of one of the responses that stated something about such actions.
Thank you for clarifying my mistake

no worries, sir.

social media owns part of our government

They don't have to own you to modify the contract. Employment at will in Texas, "either party in an employment relationship may modify any of the terms or conditions of employment, or terminate the relationship altogether, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, with or without advance notice"

The social media platforms have become the de-facto public square, Congress if it chose to do so, could declare it so and extend First Amendment protections to them. The social media platforms can enforce their rules as long as they are considered private.