web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "public"

New Poll Is Good News for Trump, Smashes Conventional Wisdom on Major Issues

Westlake Legal Group illegal-families-620x390 New Poll Is Good News for Trump, Smashes Conventional Wisdom on Major Issues republicans public Polling Politics Media Fail media bias Harvard/Harris Poll General Election Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump Conventional Wisdom 2020 election

Guatemalan immigrant Amariliz Ortiz joins families impacted by the immigration raids during a rally calling on the Obama Administration to protect Central American women and children seeking refuge in the United States. (AP Photo / Nick Ut)

This isn’t necessarily surprising in and of itself as much as it’s surprising to see a polling company actually ask and publish answers to these questions.

If you are on Twitter or partake in mainstream press, you’d be given the impression that Donald Trump is on the wrong side of every single major issue he’s pushing. From immigration, to the census, to trade. I follow The Washington Post because I unfortunately have to in order to know what to react to, and the sheer amount of “perspective” and “opinion” pieces they shove out in a 24 hour period opposing Trump is mind-blowing.

Of course, the media and Twitter aren’t real life and a new poll by Harvard/Harris shows that in stark detail.

Credit to Eddie Zipperer for putting the results in an easy to post thread.

The result on asylum is very interesting given the media narrative we constantly see painted. Most Americans appear to fall on the side of common sense when it comes to the wave of asylum seekers crossing the border illegally. You simply can’t give asylum to every economic migrant. While wanting to help everyone may be morally laudable, it’s not realistic or sustainable for the United States.  Asylum has always been predicated on imminent danger via organized violence, usually involving war or government persecution.

Trump being on the right side of the ICE deportation issue is a big slap at conventional wisdom. Again, we see Americans erring on the side of common sense, realizing that those that have legally adjudicated deportation orders need to be deported or we will simply have anarchy on the border. You’ll also see in the poll that 59% of respondents believe immigration authorities are acting in a fair manner, contrary to the hysteria we saw last week from the Democrat party.

Now for the best part though.

There has been literal gnashing of teeth for months over the idea of adding a citizenship to the census. This despite it being on there for 175 years and the President having clear statutory authority to re-add it.

A full 67% of the public believe that’s the right path. That’s a huge repudiation of the mainstream media talking points on the issue. They are not even close to having majority support on their side.

The abortion question is more expected and shows the 2020 Democrat field on the wrong side of most voters when it comes to repealing the Hyde Amendment.

There’s more involving questions on Trump and investigations that are also just incredible.

So there you have it. Despite the press pushing and pushing the idea that Trump’s positions are wildly unpopular, he actually scores highly in nearly every major question of policy. Even on the Russia issue, a majority are very interested in seeing the origins and possible abuse that took place, which is something CNN assures us isn’t important.

Let this be a lesson that what you see in the media is simply noise. If Trump can make himself more personally likable, he will walk to re-election. He just needs to make sure he doesn’t alienate voters with any major outbursts. Unfortunately, that’s far from assured given Trump’s past behavior, but it does show that he’s got room to grow if he chooses to water the seeds.

The public are largely with him on actual policy and direction. That’s a really big factor for the President heading into next year.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post New Poll Is Good News for Trump, Smashes Conventional Wisdom on Major Issues appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-smirk2-300x200 New Poll Is Good News for Trump, Smashes Conventional Wisdom on Major Issues republicans public Polling Politics Media Fail media bias Harvard/Harris Poll General Election Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump Conventional Wisdom 2020 election   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Led by Kavanaugh, SCOTUS (sort of) affirms that social media platforms aren’t bound by First Amendment in moderating content

Westlake Legal Group jk-1 Led by Kavanaugh, SCOTUS (sort of) affirms that social media platforms aren’t bound by First Amendment in moderating content The Blog Supreme Court state actor Social Media SCOTUS public forum public mnn kavanaugh First Amendment cable access

I say “sort of” because today’s ruling doesn’t specifically address social media. It was about public access television in New York City. The question: Was a private company that had been designated by NYC to operate public access stations a de facto “state actor,” bound by the First Amendment the same way the government itself is not to discriminate based on viewpoint? On rare occasions in the past, the Court has treated private entities as arms of the state based on some unusual relationship they have with the government or some unusual role they happen to play in the community. In those cases, the private entity is treated legally as a sort of state “deputy,” held to the same rules government is. That means, unlike other private actors, it can’t ban someone just because it doesn’t like what that person has to say.

Which is a bigggggg deal potentially in the age of social media. Some critics who resent the capriciousness with which platforms like Twitter and Facebook apply their terms of service to “offensive” content claim that social media behemoths should be treated as “state actors” too. The classic template of a space set aside for public dialogue is the public square, operated by the state itself, they reason, but in 2019 the public square is a virtual space operated by Big Tech. Should a virtual “public square,” open to the public for public debate, retain its legal identity as a “private forum” just because its proprietor is a private entity?

The tech industry was watching this ruling closely, with trade groups and nonprofits having filed amicus briefs urging the Court to rule narrowly if it held that a private company operating public access stations was a state actor for First Amendment purposes. If it didn’t, it would stand on the brink of revolutionizing social media’s obligations to its users:

If the Supreme Court were to decide that private companies can face First Amendment liability as state actors because they provide a forum for public speech, the Internet Association warned, “the Internet as we know it will become less attractive, less safe and less welcoming to the average user.” Search engines wouldn’t be able to exercise editorial judgment. YouTube couldn’t take down videos depicting, say, animal cruelty or hate speech. Social media sites couldn’t block offensive content…

According to EFF, platforms open to the public but owned and operated by private companies simply are not public forums for First Amendment purposes. “There can be no ‘public forum,’ as that term of art is used with respect to this court’s public forum doctrine, without significant involvement of the government itself,” its amicus brief said. EFF cautioned the justices against the logical fallacy that private companies can be deemed state actors because they operate public forums, which, by definition, can only be government-controlled.

Today the Court handed down its decision: The company operating the public access stations isn’t a state actor and therefore isn’t barred from screening content based on viewpoint by the First Amendment. The case went 5-4, with all five conservatives in the majority. Writing for the Court was one Brett Kavanaugh, who reasoned that a private entity doesn’t become a state actor unless it performs a function that has traditionally — and exclusively — been performed by government. And it simply ain’t the case that “public forums” have always been public.

Westlake Legal Group 1 Led by Kavanaugh, SCOTUS (sort of) affirms that social media platforms aren’t bound by First Amendment in moderating content The Blog Supreme Court state actor Social Media SCOTUS public forum public mnn kavanaugh First Amendment cable access

The key bit for social media:

Westlake Legal Group 2 Led by Kavanaugh, SCOTUS (sort of) affirms that social media platforms aren’t bound by First Amendment in moderating content The Blog Supreme Court state actor Social Media SCOTUS public forum public mnn kavanaugh First Amendment cable access

Although the ruling went 5-4, with the four liberals in dissent, it’s unclear if Ginsburg et al. disagree with any part of the excerpts here. Their beef with the majority is that the private company in this case wasn’t just performing a role traditionally performed by government; it had been appointed by the City itself to do so, creating an agency relationship. Twitter and Facebook have no such relationship with the federal government, so this one might have gone 9-0 had it dealt squarely with social media platforms.

Not a major problem for critics of Big Tech, though. This argument, that tech companies are de facto state actors under the First Amendment, has always been a secondary longshot line of attack. Their main argument is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act requires a company to be “neutral” in moderating content in order to enjoy immunity from liability for the things posted on its website. The more bias the company shows while screening content, the theory goes, the less “neutral” it is, which supposedly transforms it from a “platform” into a “publisher.” Once that happens, it loses its immunity. I hear this theory all the time from righties, from Ted Cruz to random people on Twitter grumbling about the latest ban, but it just ain’t true. This primer on Section 230 from EFF explains that the statute not only doesn’t punish platforms for moderating content, it encourages them to do so. If you want to change that, change the law. Don’t misread it.

The post Led by Kavanaugh, SCOTUS (sort of) affirms that social media platforms aren’t bound by First Amendment in moderating content appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jk-1-300x153 Led by Kavanaugh, SCOTUS (sort of) affirms that social media platforms aren’t bound by First Amendment in moderating content The Blog Supreme Court state actor Social Media SCOTUS public forum public mnn kavanaugh First Amendment cable access   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com