Why does social media give ISIS a platform?

[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.

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.

Dude, shut the fuck up. Ravi understood what I meant.

You're trying to defend an argument of your own making.

 

[Ravi]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

 

[Ravi]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

Which kind of is my point. He found this on social media, and he seems to not really have a problem with it.

Social media should not be showing this shit, it only gives the nutters ideas.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

I seen it as justifying and/or defending the actions taken by ISIS.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

Which kind of is my point. He found this on social media, and he seems to not really have a problem with it.

Social media should not be showing this shit, it only gives the nutters ideas.

I think they should be showing it. The world needs to see these people for what they are and social media is probably better at getting stuff like this out there than your nightly news outlet is.

 

[Shipwreck]

I hated diaper heads since the Munich Olympics. I hope they all die. Especially their rat faced children.

 

[Ravi]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

Which kind of is my point. He found this on social media, and he seems to not really have a problem with it.

Social media should not be showing this shit, it only gives the nutters ideas.

I think they should be showing it. The world needs to see these people for what they are and social media is probably better at getting stuff like this out there than your nightly news outlet is.

You don't think this is what ISIS wants? Seems to me they do, otherwise they would not post it. They are attention seeking and they are certainly getting attention.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

Which kind of is my point. He found this on social media, and he seems to not really have a problem with it.

Social media should not be showing this shit, it only gives the nutters ideas.

I think they should be showing it. The world needs to see these people for what they are and social media is probably better at getting stuff like this out there than your nightly news outlet is.

You don't think this is what ISIS wants? Seems to me they do, otherwise they would not post it. They are attention seeking and they are certainly getting attention.

As well as they should. Ignoring them isn't going to stop them or help us. I believe the more atrocities they commit the more the world would see the need to drop a nuke on their ass.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Dude, shut the fuck up. Ravi understood what I meant.

You're trying to defend an argument of your own making.

I'm replying to what you wrote. If that's inconvenient, then think before you fucking write, jerkweed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Thank you. I found his post:

"Did you watch the video? I did. I watched the entire thing. They claim it's retaliation for Jordan's unprovoked bombing & killing in Syria. And i hate to say it, but they're actually right. Jordan has no legitimate justification for bombing Syria. It's not their war. Jordan should have stayed out of it."

I don't know that I would classify that as defending terrorism but he is one sick little puppy.

Which kind of is my point. He found this on social media, and he seems to not really have a problem with it.

Social media should not be showing this shit, it only gives the nutters ideas.

I think they should be showing it. The world needs to see these people for what they are and social media is probably better at getting stuff like this out there than your nightly news outlet is.

You don't think this is what ISIS wants? Seems to me they do, otherwise they would not post it. They are attention seeking and they are certainly getting attention.

As well as they should. Ignoring them isn't going to stop them or help us. I believe the more atrocities they commit the more the world would see the need to drop a nuke on their ass.

Obviously you're unaware of how idiotic this is.

 

[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.

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.

Dude, shut the fuck up. Ravi understood what I meant.

You're trying to defend an argument of your own making.

I'm replying to what you wrote. If that's inconvenient, then think before you fucking write, jerkweed.

You should only speak when you're spoken to retard.

 

[paulitician]

Probably the same reason the U.S., Great Britain, and Saudi Arabia funded & armed them in the first place. They've gone All-In on eliminating Assad. Probably mucho cash & resources to be plundered in Syria.

The American Government/Corporate Media just does what it's told. Pro-Permanent War propaganda 24/7. All Americans should read Orwell's '1984.' We're getting there.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Dude, shut the fuck up. Ravi understood what I meant.

You're trying to defend an argument of your own making.

I'm replying to what you wrote. If that's inconvenient, then think before you fucking write, jerkweed.

You should only speak when you're spoken to retard.

QED.

 

[paulitician]

The Saudis and the West have sacrificed so many lives trying to kill Assad. So one can only conclude that there must be a whole lotta cash and resources to plunder in Syria. I guess it's all worth it for the select few Globalist Elites in the world. But we know average citizens in the world will not benefit from it one bit.