Facebook and Twitter are NOT private.

[Lummy]

Is it time to legally redefine Facebook, Twitter and similar public places as public, NOT private? In other words, aren't they really public private areas incidental to private ownership?

Yes, they are, and yes, it is. Certainly this can be done.

The government applauds the move to kick InfoWars off their sites. I do not.

[Lummy]

I hear in liberal democrat Sen Chris Murphy's lauding of the move to kick Alex Jones of those sites as a very loud 12-alarm warning, since you know damn well what that worm has in mind.

[DGUtley]

How do you suppose we do that? "legally redefine" this private entity?

…………...I mean, within the confines of that Constitution thingy?

[Lummy]

You're the legal expert. You tell me. And do it STAT! before Democrats really are sliding down that slippery slope of communist totalitarianism so fast they can't be stopped.

[Lummy]

WTF? You see the problem, and now you want to see the solution? Put on your big boy pants and get to work.

[Lummy]

Is this one reason Reagan wanted to privatize everything?

His effort was a massive ruse and a failure, so forget it, liberals.

[Lummy]

Redefine internet public forums as public, falling under the legal purview of things public because twitter and facebook addicts have no other options for much of their activity but to post there.

That's it.

If you define them as monopolies, the federal government will probably be as bad or worse at censoring them, although there is a nebulous possibility somewhere in that. Connecticut liberal Democrat senator Chris has no interest in preserving them as free speech, and most probably neither does the rest of Congress. The opportunity is too tempting. Guaranteed.

All I got, Utley. YOUR ON!

[Dr. Who]

Is it time to legally redefine Facebook, Twitter and similar public places as public, NOT private? In other words, aren't they really public private areas incidental to private ownership?

Yes, they are, and yes, it is. Certainly this can be done.

The government applauds the move to kick InfoWars off their sites. I do not.

They are private property. They pay for their websites. In order for them to be public, some level of government would have to own/pay for the websites. Just as any bar can kick out patrons that abuse their hospitality, so can social media sites. The only thing that distinguishes them from this forum, for instance, is the software that they are using and the bells and whistles that they provide.

[Safety]

Making them public would bound them by not only the rules of public accommodation, but also bound them by discrimination laws. Are conservatives really wanting to not be able to spew their racist, homophobic, or anti-muslim freely on social media?

[DGUtley]

Making them public would bound them by not only the rules of public accommodation, but also bound them by discrimination laws. Are conservatives really wanting to not be able to spew their racist, homophobic, or anti-muslim freely on social media?

So, you are saying that it's illegal to spew discriminatory, homophobic or anti-muslim venom on the public streets?