HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Enlightened - not at all - that's exactly what was being said. (See inside).
The first issue was that claims were being made that by using a site such as HSX, they lost their protection under the First Amendment (exact quote). Not true. Sure, they can be censored, but they never lose their Protection under the First Amendment.
The second issue was the claim that when HSX censored (exact quote - 'action by HSX'), it was being done 'under the First Amendment (exact quote) - again, Not True. There is no provision for Censorship under the First Amendment.
The third issue was the claim (FALSE) that the First Amendment did not apply to 'Private Corporations'. It does - it applies to everybody. Private Corporations still have the right of limited Censorship, which means that they can legally censor somebody on their sites. Private Corporations still have the right of Free Speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment. They can still censor (limited). The fact is that the First Amendment does apply to Private Corporations when the claim was that it didn't. It confused Censorship and the First Amendment.
It is others that the commentary was trying to enlighten and correct.
I've been busy on other projects lately, but there are two new articles on HSXsanity. Nov 30, 14:08
thx {nm} Nov 30, 15:17
Au contraire. What you say on HSX is protected by the First Amendment. Nov 30, 17:24
Who said anything about losing First Amendment rights? Not me. Nov 30, 19:50
Already did. {nm} Dec 01, 17:21
let me try to rephrase what HSXsanity was intending to say... Dec 02, 12:14
Had HSXsanity said exactly that, there would not have been any problem. (See inside). Dec 02, 15:57
I haven't observed a debate like this about the law since my first year of law school . . . Dec 02, 18:48
You don't deserve a response from RogerMore. You {nm} Dec 02, 19:10
You were the one who brought the First Amendment into the discussion. Dec 03, 17:10
Into this discussion? Not at all. Totally different matter and totally different issues. {nm} Dec 03, 21:08
No, in the discussion of using the First Amendment as an excuse, {nm} Dec 04, 10:38
He already admitted that he was wrong - already made corrections. {nm} Dec 03, 21:11
RotoHockey, you should re-examine the law and statutes. Dec 03, 08:23
Enlightened - not at all - that's exactly what was being said. (See inside). Dec 03, 16:49
Your statement, 'What you say on HSX isn't protected by the First Amendment' is patently FALSE. Please remove it. {nm} Nov 30, 19:47
Still poorly worded - 'action by HSX under the First Amendment'. Please remove 'under the First Amendment'. (See inside). Nov 30, 20:43
RogerMore explained the First Amendment perfectly, at 19:50, above. Saved me the trouble. Not sure what you're on about. {nm} Nov 30, 20:47
Your statement 'The First Amendment applies ... not to private corporations' is patently FALSE. Please remove it. Nov 30, 20:52
Yeah, I won't be making changes because you're not good at reading. Dec 01, 07:00
Exceptional at reading. Small wonder they have to butter the sides of your head to get you through the Theatre Doors. Dec 01, 12:10
Such name calling! I think I'm done giving you any attention. {nm} Dec 01, 14:26
Can we call you Butter Head from now on, Roger? Hmm..actually, that sounds more like a Bond girl name. {nm} Dec 01, 15:52
Agent Butterhead - he likes he likes a good piece of toast --with butter melted not softened {nm} Dec 01, 18:22
Licensed to spread. {nm} Dec 02, 09:07
Licensed to fill. {nm} Dec 02, 11:34
The First Amendment guarantees the RIGHT to say whatever you want. It does NOT guarantee the means. Dec 02, 19:13
That's a good expansion on freedom of speech. Dec 02, 20:40