Fighting Fascistbook

Fascistbook
Fighting Fascistbook Is Very Possible

Most people believe that there is no real way to fight against Facebook’s fascistic censoring of speech and opinion in its platform because Facebook aka Fascistbook is a private, corporate entity. Fortunately and surprisingly, this is NOT legally true and there is case law to back that up.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) that when a corporation is, in essence the public square and functions as such, it must abide by the same restrictions as the State insofar as Constitutional law is concerned. And that Facebook is, in fact, operating in that manner is the held opinion of the SCOTUS, as stated in Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. _ (2017).

Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

— Justice Anthony Kennedy

The Court’s ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina is of particular importance because it eliminates the potentially countering issues brought up in Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. American Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996), though Facebook’s de facto monopoly and ubiquitousness might well do that already.

So yes, I do believe that we, the People have to capacity to fight Fascistbook and the other dangerously biased and tyrannical social media corporations that have become entrenched in society to the point of it not being completely ridiculous to think of them as utilities.

Related Reading:

Freakishly Effective Social Media for Network Marketing: How to Stop Wasting Your Time on Things That Don't Work and Start Doing What Does!
Law School Confidential: A Complete Guide to the Law School Experience: By Students, for Students
Censorship Now!!
America's Constitution: A Biography
500 Social Media Marketing Tips: Essential Advice, Hints and Strategy for Business: Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, and More!

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Conflicting Smoke Signals

Recently, the US Attorney General, Jeff Session declared that he and his DoJ would reverse course on the doctrine set forth under Obama and Holder and restart enforcement of federal drug laws as they pertain to marijuana. This, frankly, leaves me feeling ambivalent since one could say that I’m getting conflicting smoke signals… and neither of them have anything directly to do with either medical or recreational use of cannabis.

To me this is an example of federal overreach resulting in the Constitution being in conflict with itself at this time. I find that the entirety of the federal drug laws, except those that cover importation, exportation, or interstate trafficking, to be violations of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. However, the Take Care Clause (Section 3, Clause 5) of Article II of the Constitution requires that the Executive shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In other words, the Constitution requires the Executive branch to enforce the laws set forth by the Legislative branch unless and until the Judicial branch declares said laws to be null and void.

That conflict is what’s making me ambivalent about this whole thing, not my personal opinions of either medical or recreational use of marijuana.

Related Reading:

House of Evil: The Indiana Torture Slaying (St. Martin's True Crime Library)
Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
Watering Weeds
Food and Drug Law (University Casebook Series)
The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road years 1962-1970

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Our Last Chance

Our Last Chance To Defend The Scotus From Liberal Infection
Our Last Chance To Defend The SCOTUS

If any American still needs a compelling reason to vote for Trump in the upcoming 2016 elections, this is it. If Hillary is elected, the makeup of the SCOTUS will be irrevocably changed and those Liberal “justices” will fundamentally transform America through judicial activism.

Related Reading:

The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus: An Introduction
The Constitution: An Introduction
The Supreme Court
Dear America: Notes of an Undocumented Citizen
Guilty as Sin: Uncovering New Evidence of Corruption and How Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Derailed the FBI Investigation

Tags: | | | | | | | | |