Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindless
Even if your post "dissecting" mine were right, which it's not, you're still missing that this site is the equivalent of private property and as such we may dictate what speech is allowed on our property..
|
"Letsbeef" is a private site "OPEN TO THE PUBLIC"... Just Like...A Mall Is Private Property..but It's Open To The Public As Well.. Therefore Since it's Open To The Public, Is Liable For Constitutional Rights.
"In the 1940s, the Supreme Court took on the issue of "companytowns" with regard to the First Amendment. Although the company townwas private property owned by the company, the fact that it had beenopened up to use by the public generally made it subject to theconstitutional requirements of the First Amendment. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)."
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...ivate-property
"..the court determined that the open and public areas of the mall effectively functioned as a public place, thus allowing the distribution of political pamphlets and the solicitation of signatures..(Aka Freedom Of Expression)"
Court Order Reference's:
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968)
Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)
State v. Schmid (1980)
City of Jamestown v. Beneda
Kings Mall v. Wenk
State of Florida v. Wood (2004)
Wall-Mart V. Crayton (2006)
^ lrn2law faggator.
btw: to the guy who said this...
"The subject of defamation,
within the bounds of United States and Canadian law is entirely placed at the feet of LB administration. The stipulative nature of this is reserved within the rights of the site administration to change or modify the rules at any given time."
^ while that is true.. you also have to remember that Freedom Of Speech / Expression IS within the bounds of United States And Canadian Law. so attempting to change and govern what you can and cant say isn't constitutional.