I'm not thinking libel, I'm thinking fraud. I.e.; fraudulent pretexts for booting people from a public forum, denial of speech if said forum can be said to be a monopoly and therefore a public forum and therefore subject to 1st Amendment protection. This is a viable legal argument, as illustrated by Jehovah's Witnesses prevailing in a case in which a private road was deemed to be public by the courts for the purposes of speech and religious activity.
I know what you meant; my point is that using opinions cast as facts to contradict and censor does not shield from liability for fraud. It is a ruse to punish dissenters and push a political agenda, which is also a violation of election laws, undeclared contribution in kind. The more you dig the more illegality you find. Let's also look into Zuckerberg's $300 million contributions to Democrat election infrastructure in swing states.
I don't think so. The whole point of calling them opinions is to make them not liable.
I'm not thinking libel, I'm thinking fraud. I.e.; fraudulent pretexts for booting people from a public forum, denial of speech if said forum can be said to be a monopoly and therefore a public forum and therefore subject to 1st Amendment protection. This is a viable legal argument, as illustrated by Jehovah's Witnesses prevailing in a case in which a private road was deemed to be public by the courts for the purposes of speech and religious activity.
I mean liable as in liability, not writing untruthfully about someone.
I know what you meant; my point is that using opinions cast as facts to contradict and censor does not shield from liability for fraud. It is a ruse to punish dissenters and push a political agenda, which is also a violation of election laws, undeclared contribution in kind. The more you dig the more illegality you find. Let's also look into Zuckerberg's $300 million contributions to Democrat election infrastructure in swing states.
I don't think the crooked court system will address any of this.