Amazingly, this actress actually understands why the democrat party purge of conservative social media is going to be really bad...

[SassyIrishLass]

decent.... she's probably had family tell her things

She made an attempt to take a stand. I'm sure peer pressure will reign her back in to the Dark Side

Hollyweird is a cess pool, you're probably right

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I never support that

Good to hear. Although I was speaking about the left IN GENERAL, can you show me any post where you actually condemned the violence? The left continually called riots, looting and ARSON, "MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTEST"

 

[Moonglow]

The purge came early this year....they aren't even waiting for kamala harris to replace joe "the rapist" biden in office.....

democrat party big tech is purging conservatives from social media and the internet......one actress understands why this is going to end in blood and tears...

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing that the Silicon Valley billionaire’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

One such person is actress-model Emily Ratajkowski, who risked the scorn of her Hollywood peers and the mainstream media by expressing her concern about Zuckerberg’s decision to blacklist the president. “This gives Facebook/tech/Zuck THE MOST POWER. If he can shut the president up/off he can shut any of us up/off,” she tweeted on Thursday.

Actress Emily Ratajkowski: If Mark Zuckerberg Can Shut the President Off Facebook, He Can Shut Any of Us Off

As many on the left applaud Mark Zuckerberg's decision to indefinitely ban President Donald Trump from Facebook and Instagram, some are realizing, like actress Emily Ratajkowski, that the Silicon Valley billionaire's decision sets a dangerous precedent for the freedom of speech.

www.breitbart.com

You sound like convicts who claim they were innocent while behind bars, it's always someone else's fault that the conservatives fucked up and the borrowed platforms they were using kicked them off..You also sound like people who have been banned from USMB..

Private companies to include USMB do not have to give you free speech they are not there to protect your freedoms and no matter how many times you nitwits are told you can never seem to grasp that basic-fundamental issue.

 

[Moonglow]

The left are 100% intolerant of any opposing views.

Says the guy who supports the rioters...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

"Peaceful George Floyd Protest Marred by Bursts of Violence

Will the Communist State Run media call the Capitol protests, "The PEACEFUL Capitol protest marred by occasional bursts of violence"????

 

[pknopp]

I never support that

Good to hear. Although I was speaking about the left IN GENERAL, can you show me any post where you actually condemned the violence? The left continually called riots, looting and ARSON, "MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTEST"

Why should I provide that? I've been clear that I am not condemning violence where needed. I support the people's right to protest and even become violent if necessary.

That does not mean I have to support every instance of protest and violence. I supported these people's right to protest but I think it's stupid to riot just because you lost. That's life.

 

[Dragonlady]

The left are 100% intolerant of any opposing views.

Really? When has the left attacked and beaten news reporters? When has the left called the press the "enemy of the people". When has the left called reports critical of the President "fake news". When has the left held rallies where the speakers have vilified and attacked members of the press, from the podium?

How many BLM protestors attacked and beat members of the press this summer, like we saw members of the press being attacked and beaten at the Capital Building yesterday.

You have no idea how every law and order concept, and Constitutional or democratic argument that supporters of Wednesday's attempted coup have just blown up, but the idea that the left is the one who opposes the free exchange of ideas is one of them.

The left doesn't oppose the free exchange of ideas, they oppose the free dissemination of propaganda and lies by the right. The fiction that there was widespread election fraud is a lie. It's a lie that Donald Trump is trying to use to overthrow the legally elected government of the United States of America. This isn't a matter of opinion or free speech, it is a simple fact, as proven by every reasonable standard of truth and facts.

Donald Trump has cynically used this lie in a naked attempt to cling to power. Not because he has a plan to get the nation back on track in the pandemic, or to help the people now lining up at food banks and desperately waiting for the economic assistance recently passed, or to end the death and suffering, but rather to keep himself and his family out of jail after four years of a crime spree of epic proportions.

The Republican Party no longer has any other purpose than to maitain power at all costs, and if that means an authoritarian dictatorship, they're all for it. Republicans who are prepared to respect the results of elections, are leaving Trump's Republican Party, many after having supporting Trump and voting not to convict him at his first impeachment, are now prepared to vote for impeachment and removal now. Too little, too late, after having enabled this criminal for the past 4 years.

The Republican Party no longer believes in elections, or voters' rights. One of those rights is to get the government they voted for, not the government that only the white people voted for, but the government that ALL of the people voted for.

This week, the President of the United States and the Republican Party, tried to force states to throw out votes from minority neighbourhoods, in order to ensure the re-election of a white supremacist regime. Welcome to Apartheid. The Republican Party, in it's attempt to overthrow the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded, has rendered itself as a traitor to Founding Fathers, who enshrined the principles of a representative republic based on free and fair elections.

Donald Trump led a seditious assault on those principles, when he incited a mob to stop the certificaton of the results of an election removing himself from power. Such attacks were not only on the Capital in Washington, but in similar attempts in State Houses across the country to stop the seating of legally elected members of the Democratic Party by questioning the results of their elections, but not the results of their own elections.

 

[BrokeLoser]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

I thought you said good things come from rioting?

I never said anything any different here. Rioting can bring good things. I would swap the lives lost for the good here but it did help bring down Trumpism, so good thing.

WOW...it's so hard to keep up with you people, you're all over the place, everything is so complex, twisted and trivial.
So, are riots good or not?

I'm suppose to address a vast generalization? You asked me a question about something I said, and I said that yes, that is my position.

Now you want me to address a vast generalization? Riots can bring about positive things. Are riots good? Well for me to answer that I need context.

Got it..so riots that help you advance your agenda are good and riots that do not are bad. Makes perfect sense.

 

[pknopp]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

I thought you said good things come from rioting?

I never said anything any different here. Rioting can bring good things. I would swap the lives lost for the good here but it did help bring down Trumpism, so good thing.

WOW...it's so hard to keep up with you people, you're all over the place, everything is so complex, twisted and trivial.
So, are riots good or not?

I'm suppose to address a vast generalization? You asked me a question about something I said, and I said that yes, that is my position.

Now you want me to address a vast generalization? Riots can bring about positive things. Are riots good? Well for me to answer that I need context.

Got it..so riots that help you advance your agenda are good and riots that do not are bad. Makes perfect sense.

Yeah. I'm suppose to support things I disagree with? How does that work?

 

[Rigby5]

I do not like Trump, but clearly banning him from Twitter, which relies entirely on providing a front end for a public communications network, is entirely and completely illegal.
The precedent is absurdly evil, in that it allows private companies to arbitrarily decide who can campaign or not, which is in total violation of the intent of the 1st amendment.
And it should be obvious that no democratic republic could ever exist or survive, if that were allowed.
It is Twitter that then should be banned from its public Internet access.

 

[pknopp]

I do not like Trump, but clearly banning him from Twitter, which relies entirely on providing a front end for a public communications network, is entirely and completely illegal.
The precedent is absurdly evil, in that it allows private companies to arbitrarily decide who can campaign or not, which is in total violation of the intent of the 1st amendment.
And it should be obvious that no democratic republic could ever exist or survive, if that were allowed.
It is Twitter that then should be banned from its public Internet access.

Trump campaigned on Twitter for four years.

 

[Rigby5]

...

Yeah. I'm suppose to support things I disagree with? How does that work?

Yes, we all are supposed to support the expression of ideas we disagree with.
The idea being that in the open and free market place of opposing ideas, that eventually the right ones will inherently win all on their own, due to their own merits, and not due to any outside use of force to make one win over any other.

{...
John Stuart Mill's writings in On Liberty, published in 1859, is thought to be the origin of translating market competition into a theory of free speech. Mill argues against censorship and in favor of the free flow of ideas. Asserting that no alone knows the truth, or that no one idea alone embodies either the truth or its antithesis, or that truth left untested will slip into dogma, Mill claims that the free competition of ideas is the best way to separate falsehoods from fact. (Photo of John Stuart Mill circa 1870 by the London Stereoscopic Company, public domain)
...}

Marketplace of Ideas

The marketplace of ideas refers to the belief that the test of the truth or acceptance of ideas depends on their competition with one another and not on the opinion of a censor.

www.mtsu.edu

 

[Rigby5]

I do not like Trump, but clearly banning him from Twitter, which relies entirely on providing a front end for a public communications network, is entirely and completely illegal.
The precedent is absurdly evil, in that it allows private companies to arbitrarily decide who can campaign or not, which is in total violation of the intent of the 1st amendment.
And it should be obvious that no democratic republic could ever exist or survive, if that were allowed.
It is Twitter that then should be banned from its public Internet access.

Trump campaigned on Twitter for four years.

And it is illegal to ever prevent anyone from campaigning on Twitter as long as anyone campaigns on Twitter.
You either have equality of access or you have an arbitrary dictatorship.

 

[pknopp]

...

Yeah. I'm suppose to support things I disagree with? How does that work?

Yes, we all are supposed to support the expression of ideas we disagree with.
The idea being that in the open and free market place of opposing ideas, that eventually the right ones will inherently win all on their own, due to their own merits, and not due to any outside use of force to make one win over any other.

{...
John Stuart Mill's writings in On Liberty, published in 1859, is thought to be the origin of translating market competition into a theory of free speech. Mill argues against censorship and in favor of the free flow of ideas. Asserting that no alone knows the truth, or that no one idea alone embodies either the truth or its antithesis, or that truth left untested will slip into dogma, Mill claims that the free competition of ideas is the best way to separate falsehoods from fact. (Photo of John Stuart Mill circa 1870 by the London Stereoscopic Company, public domain)
...}

Marketplace of Ideas

The marketplace of ideas refers to the belief that the test of the truth or acceptance of ideas depends on their competition with one another and not on the opinion of a censor.

www.mtsu.edu

Trump can say whatever he wants. He has the biggest stage in the world. Should I be able to get the same stage to say what I want?

Just because Trump is laying low doesn't mean he is unable to say whatever he darn well pleases.

 

[pknopp]

I do not like Trump, but clearly banning him from Twitter, which relies entirely on providing a front end for a public communications network, is entirely and completely illegal.
The precedent is absurdly evil, in that it allows private companies to arbitrarily decide who can campaign or not, which is in total violation of the intent of the 1st amendment.
And it should be obvious that no democratic republic could ever exist or survive, if that were allowed.
It is Twitter that then should be banned from its public Internet access.

Trump campaigned on Twitter for four years.

And it is illegal to ever prevent anyone from campaigning on Twitter as long as anyone campaigns on Twitter.
You either have equality of access or you have an arbitrary dictatorship.

He didn't get banned for campaigning.

 

[Flash]

 

[Theowl32]

Well, she is now officially rejected by the virtue signaling, fossil fuels guzzling, hypocritical, deranged, godless, destined for eternal hell, hollywood.

 

[2aguy]

The left are 100% intolerant of any opposing views.

Really? When has the left attacked and beaten news reporters? When has the left called the press the "enemy of the people". When has the left called reports critical of the President "fake news". When has the left held rallies where the speakers have vilified and attacked members of the press, from the podium?

How many BLM protestors attacked and beat members of the press this summer, like we saw members of the press being attacked and beaten at the Capital Building yesterday.

You have no idea how every law and order concept, and Constitutional or democratic argument that supporters of Wednesday's attempted coup have just blown up, but the idea that the left is the one who opposes the free exchange of ideas is one of them.

The left doesn't oppose the free exchange of ideas, they oppose the free dissemination of propaganda and lies by the right. The fiction that there was widespread election fraud is a lie. It's a lie that Donald Trump is trying to use to overthrow the legally elected government of the United States of America. This isn't a matter of opinion or free speech, it is a simple fact, as proven by every reasonable standard of truth and facts.

Donald Trump has cynically used this lie in a naked attempt to cling to power. Not because he has a plan to get the nation back on track in the pandemic, or to help the people now lining up at food banks and desperately waiting for the economic assistance recently passed, or to end the death and suffering, but rather to keep himself and his family out of jail after four years of a crime spree of epic proportions.

The Republican Party no longer has any other purpose than to maitain power at all costs, and if that means an authoritarian dictatorship, they're all for it. Republicans who are prepared to respect the results of elections, are leaving Trump's Republican Party, many after having supporting Trump and voting not to convict him at his first impeachment, are now prepared to vote for impeachment and removal now. Too little, too late, after having enabled this criminal for the past 4 years.

The Republican Party no longer believes in elections, or voters' rights. One of those rights is to get the government they voted for, not the government that only the white people voted for, but the government that ALL of the people voted for.

This week, the President of the United States and the Republican Party, tried to force states to throw out votes from minority neighbourhoods, in order to ensure the re-election of a white supremacist regime. Welcome to Apartheid. The Republican Party, in it's attempt to overthrow the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded, has rendered itself as a traitor to Founding Fathers, who enshrined the principles of a representative republic based on free and fair elections.

Donald Trump led a seditious assault on those principles, when he incited a mob to stop the certificaton of the results of an election removing himself from power. Such attacks were not only on the Capital in Washington, but in similar attempts in State Houses across the country to stop the seating of legally elected members of the Democratic Party by questioning the results of their elections, but not the results of their own elections.

You are so blind........

obama spied on reporters, antifa and blm beat up reporters you fucking doofus. The left wing democrat pres made up fake news about Trump....for 5 years, you moron.

The left is ending free speech...you idiot.......

 

[2aguy]

These venue's have long cut people off inciting people to riot. There is no such right in any manner to incite people to riot.

No, that's not true at all.

They only try to silence one side of things, everybody else gets to rock out with their cock out.

That MIGHT be true but it doesn't dispute what I said.

If you see hypocrisy condemn it but you cant argue that inciting people to riot is free speech.

What was said that constituted incitement to riot? What were the actual words and context?
(Because I don't listen to speeches.)

And has any Democrat politician or propagandist in the media ever said anything comparable?

We have covered that many times. If someone states some obscure reference they should verify that. If you are ignorant of something that has been discussed endlessly the last few days, it's up to you to educate yourself.

No, you are claiming he incited a riot, now you back it up.

We aren't "claiming" he incited a riot. We saw the speech and the tweets. Something you didn't bother to do. His "incitement" has been covered by every media outlet, in every newspaper, and on social media. We don't have to prove anything to those who have made a conscious decision to ignore facts.

Moron.......nothing he said in the speech called for violence you lying sack of shit.

For 7 months the democrat party supported the burning and looting of American cities and 30 people have been killed by the blm/antifa democrat party brownshirts.......and the democrat party bailed out the rioters and supported them with money.....

You are vile...they burned down police stations, murdered police officers and occupied sections of our cities.............

 

[Rigby5]

...

Yeah. I'm suppose to support things I disagree with? How does that work?

Yes, we all are supposed to support the expression of ideas we disagree with.
The idea being that in the open and free market place of opposing ideas, that eventually the right ones will inherently win all on their own, due to their own merits, and not due to any outside use of force to make one win over any other.

{...
John Stuart Mill's writings in On Liberty, published in 1859, is thought to be the origin of translating market competition into a theory of free speech. Mill argues against censorship and in favor of the free flow of ideas. Asserting that no alone knows the truth, or that no one idea alone embodies either the truth or its antithesis, or that truth left untested will slip into dogma, Mill claims that the free competition of ideas is the best way to separate falsehoods from fact. (Photo of John Stuart Mill circa 1870 by the London Stereoscopic Company, public domain)
...}

Marketplace of Ideas

The marketplace of ideas refers to the belief that the test of the truth or acceptance of ideas depends on their competition with one another and not on the opinion of a censor.

www.mtsu.edu

Trump can say whatever he wants. He has the biggest stage in the world. Should I be able to get the same stage to say what I want?

Just because Trump is laying low doesn't mean he is unable to say whatever he darn well pleases.

Good point.
The fact Trump was using Twitter so much was weird, and more than anyone ever has or likely should.
Still, private companies relying on public utilities should not get a say in what goes over the network, as long as it is not criminal.