Why does social media give ISIS a platform?

[Pogo]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

Yeah actually you did.
Nothing in the idea of a commercial business controlling its own content relates to any Constitutional issue, and that's what you just invoked. Commercial media controls its own content all the time.

The Constitution still dictates what the government can do with content or opinion, not what Nosebook can.

 

[Ravi]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

Yeah actually you did.
Nothing in the idea of a commercial business controlling its own content relates to any Constitutional issue, and that's what you just invoked. Commercial media controls its own content all the time.

Exactly. So I just can't understand why these businesses would give terrorists a platform. They wouldn't give pedophiles a platform, knowingly. Why is this different to them?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

That's what I said. I said I will boycott them and the rest of us should as well.

Then you will be leaving this forum since it is in the realm of social media and it does allow a platform for some that choose defend terrorism and terroristic acts. As they say, one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter.

 

[Ravi]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

That's what I said. I said I will boycott them and the rest of us should as well.

Then you will be leaving this forum since it is in the realm of social media and it does allow a platform for some that choose defend terrorism and terroristic acts. As they say, one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter.

I've not seen anyone here defend terrorism, or more importantly, post videos of them beheading people and trying to recruit members.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

ISIS threatens Twitter employees in U.S. and Europe

I don't know exactly what you need to get a twitter account and start posting shit, but I bet it's pretty easy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

Yeah actually you did.
Nothing in the idea of a commercial business controlling its own content relates to any Constitutional issue, and that's what you just invoked. Commercial media controls its own content all the time.

I think I know what I suggested. And yes speech is protected under the Constitution. Social media sites have the right to give a platform to whomever they choose. Too bad you libs want to silence everything that you disagree with.

 

[BlindBoo]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

ISIS is covered by our constitution?

Free speech is. I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't specify that speech must originate in any particular place.

The Government can't force Twitter to block them. However, Twitter can of it's own accord decide to block them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I've not seen anyone here defend terrorism, or more importantly, post videos of them beheading people and trying to recruit members.

You have never been to the Israel, Europe or Middle East sections if you have never seen people here defending terrorism.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

That's what I said. I said I will boycott them and the rest of us should as well.

Then you will be leaving this forum since it is in the realm of social media and it does allow a platform for some that choose defend terrorism and terroristic acts. As they say, one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter.

I've not seen anyone here defend terrorism, or more importantly, post videos of them beheading people and trying to recruit members.

I recall seeing paulitician pretty much defend ISIS's killing of the Jordanian pilot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

ISIS is covered by our constitution?

Free speech is. I'm pretty sure the bill of rights doesn't specify that speech must originate in any particular place.

The Government can't force Twitter to block them. However, Twitter can of it's own accord decide to block them.

Exactly.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I recall seeing paulitician pretty much defend ISIS's killing of the Jordanian pilot.

Not to mention all the antisemites here justifying and defending terrorism against Jews.

Heck, some even defend genocide.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those sites get hits off those videos.

Social Media is largely used by the Ideological Left and the a-political dullards influenced by the Ideological Left.

As the Ideological Left is a function of Islam...

 

[Moonglow]

Those sites get hits off those videos.

Social Media is largely used by the Ideological Left and the a-political dullards influenced by the Ideological Left.

As the Ideological Left is a function of Islam...

And my butt sings show tunes.....

 

[Ravi]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

Yeah actually you did.
Nothing in the idea of a commercial business controlling its own content relates to any Constitutional issue, and that's what you just invoked. Commercial media controls its own content all the time.

I think I know what I suggested. And yes speech is protected under the Constitution. Social media sites have the right to give a platform to whomever they choose. Too bad you libs want to silence everything that you disagree with.

Why do they though?

 

[Ravi]

I've not seen anyone here defend terrorism, or more importantly, post videos of them beheading people and trying to recruit members.

You have never been to the Israel, Europe or Middle East sections if you have never seen people here defending terrorism.

Yes, I do not read those forums. I will look at it.

 

[Ravi]

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

That's what I said. I said I will boycott them and the rest of us should as well.

Then you will be leaving this forum since it is in the realm of social media and it does allow a platform for some that choose defend terrorism and terroristic acts. As they say, one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter.

I've not seen anyone here defend terrorism, or more importantly, post videos of them beheading people and trying to recruit members.

I recall seeing paulitician pretty much defend ISIS's killing of the Jordanian pilot.

That's sick. Can you link it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Those sites get hits off those videos.

Social Media is largely used by the Ideological Left and the a-political dullards influenced by the Ideological Left.

As the Ideological Left is a function of Islam...

And my butt sings show tunes.....

So you're confessing here, that you, a professed Leftists and as such an axiomatic apologist for Islam, that when you fart and excrete, you believe that your anus is singing show tunes to you?

ROFLMNAO!

Well... that's a classic presentation of psychosis.

Does anyone need anything else?

 

[Pogo]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

Yeah actually you did.
Nothing in the idea of a commercial business controlling its own content relates to any Constitutional issue, and that's what you just invoked. Commercial media controls its own content all the time.

I think I know what I suggested. And yes speech is protected under the Constitution. Social media sites have the right to give a platform to whomever they choose. Too bad you libs want to silence everything that you disagree with.

Speech is protected from the government. That's why it says "Congress shall make no law". It does not say "Twitter shall make no policy".

Free speech -- from the government -- is a primary essential of Liberalism. You're twisting yourself into a rhetorical pretzel here. You've made the case -- correctly in my estimation -- that speech should breathe freely. That's an essential of Liberalism, so well done.

But it's still got nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Typical liberal wanting to trample on constitutional rights.

If that's Lonestar logic....

The Constitution doesn't say a business can't control content. It says the government can't.

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

Yeah actually you did.
Nothing in the idea of a commercial business controlling its own content relates to any Constitutional issue, and that's what you just invoked. Commercial media controls its own content all the time.

I think I know what I suggested. And yes speech is protected under the Constitution. Social media sites have the right to give a platform to whomever they choose. Too bad you libs want to silence everything that you disagree with.

Why do they though?

Ask them, but my guess is it's because they can.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No one suggested it did.

My point is that as a typical liberal, Ravi wants to silence (censor) what she doesn't like. If a person doesn't like what they see on social media, then they should excise their right to not engage in social media. But that would be too easy.

That's what I said. I said I will boycott them and the rest of us should as well.

Then you will be leaving this forum since it is in the realm of social media and it does allow a platform for some that choose defend terrorism and terroristic acts. As they say, one man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter.

I've not seen anyone here defend terrorism, or more importantly, post videos of them beheading people and trying to recruit members.

I recall seeing paulitician pretty much defend ISIS's killing of the Jordanian pilot.

That's sick. Can you link it?

I'll try.

King Abdullah of Jordan and Muslim leaders say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Stop the idiocy. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum