Democrats are fighting for censorship

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Joe Biden’s administration in a Monday amicus brief pushed the Supreme Court to rule against Republican-led states’ laws that prevent online censorship.

Florida and Texas have enacted laws to stop Big Tech platforms from censoring content due to viewpoint, and the Biden administration asked for the Supreme Court to review them, according to the brief. Specifically, the Biden administration requested for the Supreme Court to rule against the states’ laws and in favor of social media companies’ right to censor.

“The platforms’ content-moderation activities are protected by the First Amendment,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the Biden administration’s brief. “Given the torrent of content created on the platforms, one of their central functions is to make choices about which content will be displayed to which users, in which form and which order.”

Biden Admin Pushes Supreme Court To Rule Against Red State Laws Blocking Online Censorship

President Joe Biden's administration pushed the Supreme Court of the United States to rule against Republican-led states' laws that prevent online censorship.

dailycaller.com

Comment:
Censorship is the tool of despots, tyrants and dangerous totalitarian regimes.
The Democrats fear the truth because the truth will destroy them.
Political Censorship is specifically unconstitutional in the United States.

 

[pknopp]

Florida and Texas have enacted laws to stop Big Tech platforms from censoring content due to viewpoint.

What a non government entity does in that situation is NONE of the government business. NONE.

 

[progressive hunter]

Florida and Texas have enacted laws to stop Big Tech platforms from censoring content due to viewpoint.

What a non government entity does in that situation is NONE of the government business. NONE.

when that platform has government protections it is their/our business

 

[ActionJackson]

Joe Biden’s administration in a Monday amicus brief pushed the Supreme Court to rule against Republican-led states’ laws that prevent online censorship.

Florida and Texas have enacted laws to stop Big Tech platforms from censoring content due to viewpoint, and the Biden administration asked for the Supreme Court to review them, according to the brief. Specifically, the Biden administration requested for the Supreme Court to rule against the states’ laws and in favor of social media companies’ right to censor.

“The platforms’ content-moderation activities are protected by the First Amendment,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the Biden administration’s brief. “Given the torrent of content created on the platforms, one of their central functions is to make choices about which content will be displayed to which users, in which form and which order.”

Biden Admin Pushes Supreme Court To Rule Against Red State Laws Blocking Online Censorship

President Joe Biden's administration pushed the Supreme Court of the United States to rule against Republican-led states' laws that prevent online censorship.

dailycaller.com

Comment:
Censorship is the tool of despots, tyrants and dangerous totalitarian regimes.
The Democrats fear the truth because the truth will destroy them.
Political Censorship is specifically unconstitutional in the United States.

And people wonder why I call DemonRats, MARXISTS! You don't expect censorship in a free country but you sure do under a Communist dictatorship.

 

[pknopp]

when that platform has government protections it is their/our business

It's NOT the government business what a platform allows on their platform.

This site (poorly) governs what they allow. They should be allowed to. If one does not like it there are hundreds of others.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's NOT the government business what a platform allows on their platform.

This site (poorly) governs what they allow. They should be allowed to. If one does not like it there are hundreds of others.

it is when that platform has government protections,,

 

[Concerned American]

It's NOT the government business what a platform allows on their platform.

This site (poorly) governs what they allow. They should be allowed to. If one does not like it there are hundreds of others.

Are you afraid to see opposing view points? Tsk, tsk, tsk, fucking commie.

 

[Votto]

 

[pknopp]

it is when that platform has government protections,,

You want all of them shut down as that is what would happen. No one would operate a site if they could be held accountable for anything one posts.

That sounds like censorship to me.

 

[pknopp]

Are you afraid to see opposing view points? Tsk, tsk, tsk, fucking commie.

There are opposing views to mine posted here every day. (The majority most likely)

 

[Votto]

You want all of them shut down as that is what would happen. No one would operate a site if they could be held accountable for anything one posts.

That sounds like censorship to me.

The DNC is now so openly corrupt they have no choice but to clamp down on free speech.

 

[Concerned American]

There are opposing views to mine posted here every day. (The majority most likely)

They don't censor here.

 

[pknopp]

The DNC is now so openly corrupt they have no choice but to clamp down on free speech.

I'm not trying to argue that they are not corrupt. I have argued that myself many times. Stick with what I actually argue.

 

[pknopp]

They don't censor here.

O.K. If you say so. There sure is a lot of empty bitching then.

 

[Votto]

They don't censor here.

Yet.

It's a process

 

[progressive hunter]

You want all of them shut down as that is what would happen. No one would operate a site if they could be held accountable for anything one posts.

That sounds like censorship to me.

did I say that??

thats the point,, the protections protect them from things posted,, and the majority of things they remove arent even things they would get in trouble for,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Are you afraid to see opposing view points? Tsk, tsk, tsk, fucking commie.

hes not afraid,, he just doesnt want his feelings hurt,,

 

[pknopp]

did I say that??

thats the point,, the protections protect them from things posted,, and the majority of things they remove arent even things they would get in trouble for,,

Which they are allowed to do. If they don't want something on their site they are free to delete it.

To use an easier example. I post to a vintage car site. If you post your car with anything but a vintage drivetrain it's deleted.

Their right.

 

[progressive hunter]

Which they are allowed to do. If they don't want something on their site they are free to delete it.

To use an easier example. I post to a vintage car site. If you post your car with anything but a vintage drivetrain it's deleted.

Their right.

sure they can,, but they should have government protections removed since those are for platforms designed to be public access,,

your example is just dumb because we arent talking about specifically designed forum for a single focus,, we are talking about forums that are designed to be open discussions,,

if this site decided to start deleting liberal views they should have their protections removed or change their format to conservative only,,

 

[pknopp]

sure they can,, but they should have government protections removed since those are for platforms designed to be public access,,

your example is just dumb because we arent talking about specifically designed forum for a single focus,, we are talking about forums that are designed to be open discussions,,

if this site decided to start deleting liberal views they should have their protections removed or change their format to conservative only,,

Their call. Why are you so willing to cede so much power to the government? To have something else to complain about later?

What do you say? Maybe allow the FBI to patrol it all?