|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: A new Texas law fights Big Tech censorship. Last week showed why we need it.
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If a social media company can apply double standards based on someone’s position of power or influence, as in the case of Facebook, what is to stop it from censoring a mother from Beaumont for sharing her religious beliefs or a rancher from Amarillo supporting the Second Amendment? The answer is nothing — unless we fight back against Big Tech censorship and hold these companies accountable.
That is exactly what Texas has achieved with this new law.
Under the law, Texans who are wrongfully de-platformed or censored can file a lawsuit against the social media site to get back online and make the site pay their legal fees. The Texas attorney general can likewise file a lawsuit on behalf of any Texan who is wrongfully de-platformed. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(9/23/2021)
|
| It's actually democrat DEEP STATE tech, not "big tech." Loving Texas these days. Fk stupid fb and litter and google. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
