7000-1. Guess Who Won

[martybegan]

Of course they are. They’re the ones preparing and maintaining the content and distributing it to others.

How is that not publishing?

Because they admit themselves they are not publishers.

 

[colfax_m]

I would think a newspaper would want to, especially a presidential candidate.

Newspapers are not social media. For someone who keeps trying to imply they are modern concept savvy, your comparisons to oldtech are pretty luddite-ish.

Who cares if they want to or not. A law saying they have to wouldn’t be constitutional.

News papers are a LOT more similar to social media than a damn electric company, FFS. For the purposes of the discussion, what are the relevant differences? A candidate NEEDS access to the electorate. The electorate NEEDS access to a candidate. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a fair election, right?

 

[martybegan]

Who cares if they want to or not. A law saying they have to wouldn’t be constitutional.

News papers are a LOT more similar to social media than a damn electric company, FFS. For the purposes of the discussion, what are the relevant differences? A candidate NEEDS access to the electorate. The electorate NEEDS access to a candidate. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a fair election, right?

As a newspaper is a publisher, even if the editorials are not theirs, they take responsibility for them, as the actively decide what to publish.

Have any newspapers done a total ban on reporting on a candidate?

 

[colfax_m]

As a newspaper is a publisher, even if the editorials are not theirs, they take responsibility for them, as the actively decide what to publish.

Have any newspapers done a total ban on reporting on a candidate?

Cool. So pass a law that says the editorials produced by political candidates are not subject to defamation cases against the newspaper.

Then force them to carry the editorial of the candidate.

It would still be very unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

Cool. So pass a law that says the editorials produced by political candidates are not subject to defamation cases against the newspaper.

Then force them to carry the editorial of the candidate.

It would still be very unconstitutional.

Because it's their speech.

Twitter et al have freely admitted the content on their site is not theirs unless they explicitly say it is, i.e twitter posting as twitter.

 

[colfax_m]

Because it's their speech.

Twitter et al have freely admitted the content on their site is not theirs unless they explicitly say it is, i.e twitter posting as twitter.

No, the editorial is written by a political candidate. It's not the newspaper's speech.

 

[martybegan]

No, the editorial is written by a political candidate. It's not the newspaper's speech.

But they don't deny they are publishing it. They say the opinions are not their own, but they don't deny being a publisher.

 

[colfax_m]

But they don't deny they are publishing it. They say the opinions are not their own, but they don't deny being a publisher.

Whether they deny being a publisher or not is irrelevant. You aren't a publisher because of what you say but because of what you do.

Printing the editorial and delivering it to customers is the same as writing code to display tweets and distributing them to users.

 

[martybegan]

Whether they deny being a publisher or not is irrelevant. You aren't a publisher because of what you say but because of what you do.

Printing the editorial and delivering it to customers is the same as writing code to display tweets and distributing them to users.

what they say and do is the same thing legally.

Again, newspapers don't deny publishing their entire paper, social media sites deny publishing entirely.

 

[colfax_m]

what they say and do is the same thing legally.

Again, newspapers don't deny publishing their entire paper, social media sites deny publishing entirely.

No, what they say and what they do is NOT the same thing legally. This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.

Hypothetically, if a newspaper did deny they are a publisher, it would be irrelevant because saying so doesn't make it true.

As for the social media sites, they actually do say they publish material.

 

[Catman51]

Fox news doesn't have the share of social media twitter does, and again, not the same thing.

Just admit you want advantages for your candidate. All the trussed up corporate freedom crap is ******* bullshit.

Colfax sees no problem as long as something benefits the party of his masters and will try to twist anythi8ng to fit his desires. He wantss to be part of the ruling elite and will not admit to their failures along the way.

 

[Catman51]

But if people are only getting “one side” it’s not because they don’t have access to the other side.

That’s a personal choice.

Would that be why you choose the side of false comments and lies.

And yes, being a bigoted idiot is a personal choice which you have gladly made while urging any other thought to be banned.

 

[Catman51]

No, what they say and what they do is NOT the same thing legally. This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.

Hypothetically, if a newspaper did deny they are a publisher, it would be irrelevant because saying so doesn't make it true.

As for the social media sites, they actually do say they publish material.

What a wannabe lawyer, still trying and failing to make words mean just what he wants and ignoring the truth at all costs.

As usual, any stupid statement comes from you and you are to stupid to realize it.

 

[colfax_m]

What a wannabe lawyer, still trying and failing to make words mean just what he wants and ignoring the truth at all costs.

As usual, any stupid statement comes from you and you are to stupid to realize it.

You're confused.

 

[martybegan]

No, what they say and what they do is NOT the same thing legally. This is a mind numbingly stupid statement.

Hypothetically, if a newspaper did deny they are a publisher, it would be irrelevant because saying so doesn't make it true.

As for the social media sites, they actually do say they publish material.

So as long as I say "I am not a murderer" I can't be convicted of Murder?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its the US flag and the military. Two things that democrats hate.

It's a long list....


"They hate conservatives. They hate our country. They hate the American flag. They hate police. They hate traditional values. They hate rural voters. They hate rural America. They hate working class people. They hate those without college degrees. They hate anything not situated in urban America."
Intolerance: Oh, So This Is Why Around Half Of Liberals Can't Stand Being Around Trump Supporters

 

[colfax_m]

So as long as I say "I am not a murderer" I can't be convicted of Murder?

That's the argument you've been making.

You keep saying that social media sites say they're not publishers (which is barely half true) and so they're not publishers and therefore no first amendment concerns.

Social media platforms are publishers because they publish content. They're not publishers for purposes of liability for civil lawsuits only. That's merely a statutory definition.

Which is why if you passed a law saying a newspaper has to publish an oped from a candidate, it would be a violation of the first amendment even if you gave that newspaper immunity from lawsuits for doing so.

 

[martybegan]

That's the argument you've been making.

You keep saying that social media sites say they're not publishers (which is barely half true) and so they're not publishers and therefore no first amendment concerns.

Social media platforms are publishers because they publish content. They're not publishers for purposes of liability for civil lawsuits only. That's merely a statutory definition.

Which is why if you passed a law saying a newspaper has to publish an oped from a candidate, it would be a violation of the first amendment even if you gave that newspaper immunity from lawsuits for doing so.

That's the argument you are making "I can be a publisher and not be a legal publisher at the same time"

For "reasons"

They can't separate the two if they want constitutional protections, sorry but constitutional law is still law.

 

[colfax_m]

That's the argument you are making "I can be a publisher and not be a legal publisher at the same time"

For "reasons"

They can't separate the two if they want constitutional protections, sorry but constitutional law is still law.

The reason they're not a publisher for purposes of civil liability is because of section 230.

They still retain constitutional rights of a publisher.

You can separate the two.

 

[Billiejeens]

View attachment 583008 One person in Salem Oregon complained about the Iwo Jima mural on the man’s business on private property.

City says remove it or get fined.

Who said Democrats were fascist America haters?

Far Left Mayor Demands Removal of Private, Iwo Jima Flag-Raising Mural. - The National Pulse

The Democratic Mayor of Salem, Oregon – Chuck Bennett – has ordered the removal of a private business owner’s mural depicting the iconic, patriotic flag-raising at Iwo Jima during WWII. The mural is painted on the side of Valley Roofing in Salem, Oregon, which is privately owned by local...

thenationalpulse.com

Everyone