Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where do you get this shit?Well, I was bringing it back to the topic: Alex Jones is calling for a congressional hearing. And many of the board Trumpsters are supporting him in that effort.
I just don't like seeing our rights being dumbed down to the point of actually inverting them. Which is happening. We, many of us anyway, are starting to see rights not as freedoms protected from government encroachment, but as claims on the cooperation of others. The left has long conflated these concerns, and frankly were the first to come up with this idea that an employer can violate Constitutional freedoms. Now the right is getting on board, which is very concerning. They've never been what I'd call stalwart defenders of freedom, but the Republicans have at least provided some check on the liberal ambitions of the Democrats. Seeing them accept the basic premises of the progressive agenda basically provides the last few nails in our national coffin.
This is true. But it doesn't apply to the facebook/google/twitter conundrum.
Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.
Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
Where do you get this shit?This is true. But it doesn't apply to the facebook/google/twitter conundrum.
Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.
Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.
Where do you get this shit?Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.
Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.
Not if antifa shows up to throw bricks at me.
Not if I want to say it on facebook..which is the modern equivalent of the public square.
Where do you get this shit?This is true. But it doesn't apply to the facebook/google/twitter conundrum.
Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.
Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.
Where do you get this stuff?Where do you get this shit?Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.
Not if antifa shows up to throw bricks at me.
Not if I want to say it on facebook..which is the modern equivalent of the public square.
It's not the modern equivalent of the public square because YOU do not support it with your tax dollars
It is a private company that publishes a web site that is all it is. All you people who use it are nothing but targets for advertising which is where Facebook makes most of its money.
There is absolutely no analogy to public property.
Where do you get this shit?Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.
Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.Where do you get this stuff?Where do you get this shit?Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.
Not if antifa shows up to throw bricks at me.
Not if I want to say it on facebook..which is the modern equivalent of the public square.
It's not the modern equivalent of the public square because YOU do not support it with your tax dollars
It is a private company that publishes a web site that is all it is. All you people who use it are nothing but targets for advertising which is where Facebook makes most of its money.
There is absolutely no analogy to public property.
"There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."
"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "
Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship
Where do you get this shit?Yeah. It does. A business cannot violate your Constitutional rights. Only government can do that. It's the same situation.
Bullshit. People violate your constitutional rights. And people run the businesses.
Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.Where do you get this stuff?Where do you get this shit?Only the government or agents acting on behalf of the government can violate your constitutional rights
As you have been told many times and I have also cited the explanation of first amendment rights and what they do and do not protect people from the Bill of rights is a control on government.
No website, or newspaper for that matter is obligated to provide you a venue to exercise your first amendment rights
I didn't say any website or newspaper were obligated. I said that those who own papers and websites cannot work together to stifle free speech.
I said it's a crime to print libel, it's a crime to slander, and it's a crime to seek to overthrow the presidency.
You have not proven collusion
And no private entity even if in collusion with another can "stifle" your speech.
You are 100% free to publish your own website, or book or newsletter and say whatever the fuck you want.
Not if antifa shows up to throw bricks at me.
Not if I want to say it on facebook..which is the modern equivalent of the public square.
It's not the modern equivalent of the public square because YOU do not support it with your tax dollars
It is a private company that publishes a web site that is all it is. All you people who use it are nothing but targets for advertising which is where Facebook makes most of its money.
There is absolutely no analogy to public property.
The only way for you people to be able to claim that Facebook has the obligation to protect your first amendment rights is to have it classified as a public utility and that ain't gonna happen
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else."There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."
"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "
Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship
LOL... now there's a source we can trust.
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else."There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."
"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "
Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship
LOL... now there's a source we can trust.
You just keep glossing over that, by pretending that the constitution only exists to protect people from the government. It certainly does that, but it also is the foundation upon which the laws of our country stand.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else."There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."
"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "
Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship
LOL... now there's a source we can trust.
You just keep glossing over that, by pretending that the constitution only exists to protect people from the government. It certainly does that, but it also is the foundation upon which the laws of our country stand.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
The point is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the government violating your rights.
Any business owner can kick you out if you start making speeches on their premises
Any homeowner can kick you out of their house if you start making speeches
In your world those people have violated your rights
In the real world they haven't
The only way to make Facebook or any other private company obligated to the First or any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is to have those entities classified as public utilities.
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.
What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else."There will of course be apologists for the corporate control of speech, on both the left and right, who will say, ‘It’s only censorship when the government does it!’. They are so wrong. When enormous companies that have arguably become the facilitators of public debate expel someone and his ideas because they find them morally repugnant, that is censorship. Powerful people have deprived an individual and his network of a key space in which they might propagate their beliefs. Aka censorship."
"To empower global capitalism to act as judge, jury and executioner on what may be said on social-media platforms, in the new public square, is to sign the death warrant of freedom of speech. "
Alex Jones and the rise of corporate censorship
LOL... now there's a source we can trust.
You just keep glossing over that, by pretending that the constitution only exists to protect people from the government. It certainly does that, but it also is the foundation upon which the laws of our country stand.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
The point is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the government violating your rights.
Any business owner can kick you out if you start making speeches on their premises
Any homeowner can kick you out of their house if you start making speeches
In your world those people have violated your rights
In the real world they haven't
The only way to make Facebook or any other private company obligated to the First or any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is to have those entities classified as public utilities.
The rights exist with or without the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution protects the individual liberties of ALL from all. It also is the framework upon which every law (and all three branches of government..which include Judicial and Legislative...which pertain to LAW) in our country is based.
Our government is charged with protecting the individual rights of Americans. You can pretend it isn't so (or just ignore it) by kibbitzing all you like..
But the fact of the matter is..
We have the right to free speech.
Anyone, or anything, or any group of people, who work together (or separately) to deny us that right are breaking the law.
They do. Show one single example of FB using subsidized public anything.Under this logic, everything is public domain. Tell me again why you are suddenly embracing total socialism?You may have stated that they act like 'public carriers' but the fact is they are not. They neither represent access (that is the ISP) nor do they have a lock on social media.You make a fatal logical flaw in this though. The internet itself is accessible by anyone. That is the ISP's that you are referring to - the companies that actually provide that access. What facebook does is host content ON THEIR OWN COMPUTERS and allow you to access and contribute to that content. What they choose to host or content that they chose to allow is up to them in its entierty. They own the computers and they make it avalable to the public as they see fit. If they wanted to go full out and declare that they are only hosing content that is backing democrats or trashing republicans that is their right. Just as it is the right of Breitbart to do the exact opposite on the website that they host.
Don't like it, don't use their computers. they do not provide a vital service such as water - something you will die without - and they are not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. There are a ton of social media platforms out there. Facebook just has the most successful one.
If they don't want to provide equal access, they don't have to allow political speech; easy enough to remove it. Like I said, they act as 'public carriers' and operate on public air waves and utilities. If a baker can be harassed and sued, so can Facebook for discrimination and rights violations. Free political speech needs to be protected, period;They can make their services completely private if they want to spend the bucks running their own lines to their customers' houses or businesses, and pay for the rights of way out their own pockets. Until then, they aren't 'private' companies, they abide by Federal and state regs similar to pubic carriers.
I never said there was any perfect answer, modern tech has raised a lot of legal conflicts. IF they're going to ban any political speech, they need to ban it all. If anybody doesn't like it, take your stuff completely private.
You position is based on a false premise. Further, those lines that you are going on about are not even public property either. ISP's PAY to put those lines in and then charge for your access to them - something FB is PAYING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO USE. Past that, those 'lines' are not even a monopoly either. You can access FB content through your cable line, from a direct satellite up link or through your phone lines. You can pay a satellite provider, Comcast, Century link or forgo internet companies entirely and pay Verizon or Sprint for your access - as FB can as well.
ALL of this is around private companies and private property. The fact that you simply want to declare it a public resource is antithetical to freedom. There is literally nothing that makes FB similar to the water or power company - companies that provide services that you require for general life AND have an utter monopoly.
Wrong again. Those lines run on land condemned by local, state, and Federal governments, same as pipelines, same as roads, railroads, etc. Air waves are publicly owned as well. they are not 'private'; those companies wouldn't spend the kind of money it would take to secure right of ways to make their networks entirely private. You can snivel about 'their private property', but the fact is they can't operate as entirely private, they are providing public access, and they have public obligations, and if they want to avoid providing equal time for political speech then can just not provide any political speech at all. Pretty simple. the juvenile 'libertarian' logic is just circular reasoning, and not reality, just specious rhetoric. I own m car, but I have to drive it according the laws re the use of public roads. Those clowns want to allow political speech they like, then they can provide equal time for opposing views, or they can avoid any political speech, or they can remove their services from public routes and build their own network on their own dime. Like I said, good luck with buying the right of ways for that truly private network access. they are no different from cable TV, phone companies, satellite broadcasters, cell phone towers, utility lines, etc.
Wrong again. They're perfectly free to purchase their own right of ways on the private markets and not use the publicly subsidized right of ways.
Nice rant. Unfortunately it has zero to do with the topic. FB does not use public anything. One more time, THE ISP IS THE ONE THAT PROVIDES ACCESS.The only 'socialist's here are the right wingers, who suddenly love socialism when it lines their pockets and increases their control of markets. The Kochs are a typical example, always making big noises about their 'Libertarian values and belief in free markets', while making billions off of stealing private property via hiding behind 'eminent domain' laws and government seizures of other people's private property without any real 'free market' on what they want to pay for land.
Show one place where I am embracing socialism? You are directly calling for government control of private property for nothing more than they are doing something you do not like. On the other hand, you have not called for the same to be applied to any other business that provides the same exact service.Another great example is none of them ever run around demanding an end to 'corporate personhood' scams and limited liability for corporations, a huge subsidy and welfare program for Wall Street and the 'business' lobby, along with the limits on short sales and the like.
Tell me again why you need to lie about who is 'embracing socialism' here? Obviously it's you 'free market' hypocrites.
You have to be more flexible in your core beliefs dblack, those are only for conservatives. When it comes to liberals, complete control is just fine then. They do not get rights.The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.
What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.
What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.
You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia
The point is it is illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else.
What legislation makes that illegal? I've never heard of such a thing.
And those laws maintain that it is ILLEGAL for people, for businesses, for the government....to 1. commit sedition 2. to work to deny people their human rights.
Which ones? Are you referring to civil rights laws, like the one in Colorado that forces bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings? I'm opposed to those as well.
You have never heard that sedition is illegal?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
You've never heard that it's illegal to violate people's human rights?
"Human rights in the United States comprise and very focused of a series of rights which are legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, including the amendments"
Human rights in the United States - Wikipedia
But what laws make it illegal for anybody to stifle the rights of anybody else?
You're describing Constitutional limits on government. The Constitution ensures that government won't violate human rights with bad laws. It doesn't dictate individual behavior.
I'm asking this question, not to pretend to be stupid, but because you are wrong. There are no such laws. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our Constitutional rights work.
