Biden administration and social media censorship.

[jknowgood]

Prove it.

Look it up and stop watching cnn. You proved yourself a tool that will believe anything they say and they lie constantly. Trump was right and you loons crucified him over it. The democrat party wanted as many deaths as they could get. To make Trump look bad, they knew the entire time ivermectin would help. But the story part is more died under Biden. Why don't you stop hating and quit listening to what the democrat party wants you to believe.

 

[Votto]

No, it didn't.

Do you understand free speech????

Literally had they gone to Meta and said "do this, or there will be consequences" then yes, it might have violated the 1A.

They didn't.

Free speech in this case is: The government can say whatever it likes, as long as it doesn't lock people up for speech which is protected.

They didn't do this.

That's right, the government can say and do whatever it wants with impunity, but American citizens cannot.

Sound fair?

In fact, they can lie their arse off promising you anything and lie about it, but nothing ever is done to them as they somehow manipulate another election win.

Last election the Biden administration told social media that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russin disinformation, and told them to censor the story, which they dutifully did. After the election, it was found out that that was a lie, the laptop scandal was legit, but the damage had been done. Biden won the election. After the election about 20% of voters said they would not have voted for Biden had they known.

And that is the state of the media, it is one where the DNC controls what is said or what is not said, which then basically allows them to control elections. Is it Constitutional? What does it matter? If it's not, the DNC rules the government and media so nothing will ever be done about it. All that matters is control and winning elections. They certainly don't give a damn about the Constitution and freedom, and neither do you.

Democracy is nothing more than whoever is best at controlling propaganda.

It is a joke.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Mark Zuckerberg admits that the Biden Administration pressured Meta into censoring US citizens. Vehemently denied by the loons on the left now we have direct conformation.

Meta CEO admits Biden-Harris admin pressured company to censor Americans

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan that the Biden-Harris admin pressured Facebook to censor Americans.

www.foxbusiness.com

Yawn.

First amendment rights in action.

"Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure," Zuckerberg wrote.

 

[Catsnmeters]

That's right, the government can say and do whatever it wants with impunity, but American citizens cannot.

Sound fair?

In fact, they can lie their arse off promising you anything and lie about it, but nothing ever is done to them as they somehow manipulate another election win.

Last election the Biden administration told social media that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russin disinformation, and told them to censor the story, which they dutifully did. After the election, it was found out that that was a lie, the laptop scandal was legit, but the damage had been done. Biden won the election. After the election about 20% of voters said they would not have voted for Biden had they known.

When did the Biden administration say this lie?

What was the lie?

And that is the state of the media, it is one where the DNC controls what is said or what is not said, which then basically allows them to control elections. Is it Constitutional? What does it matter? If it's not, the DNC rules the government and media so nothing will ever be done about it. All that matters is control and winning elections. They certainly don't give a damn about the Constitution and freedom, and neither do you.

Conspiracy nonsense.

Democracy is nothing more than whoever is best at controlling propaganda.

It is a joke.

 

[Lisa558]

Privately held social media companies are not bound by 1st A restrictions when it comes to removing content they determine is untruthful or a danger to the public. It is incumbent on any responsible admin to encourage them to do so.

The problem is that the Democrat administration deems information that can hurt their re-election chances to be “a danger.”

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Of course he should have. It would have been irresponsible not to.

trump threatened legal action when the media printed unflattering stories about him. Biden was trying to prevent misinformation from harming the public. See the difference?

Irrelevant. It’s not up to the President to decide that. In fact, it’s not up to anyone in government to decide that, even if it is in fact, misinformation. We have the right to say what we want, even if it’s factually incorrect. It’s precisely why we have the 1A in the first place.

On top of all that the government spread their own misinformation during covid. All the crap they were saying about the vaccines and masks was just that: crap.

 

[frigidweirdo]

WRONG. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to free speech without government infringement. That’s it. This is what makes Biden’s actions so questionable.

It actually does not say citizens cannot infringe each others’ right to free speech (there may be state and local laws on this, I don’t know). However, those like myself who take the 1A seriously, apply the principle to everyday life: no matter how much I may dislike what someone says, I would never take that right away, even if I could. At the same time I would never try to shout them down or prevent them saying their piece as so many do today.


I didn’t say he couldn’t; but as POTUS he probably shouldn’t have.


Actually, it’s not. Meta in fact did as Biden asked and censored user posts. Zuckerberg is now saying he wished he hadn’t.

Not exactly. As I pointed out above, it only says the government cannot infringe our right to free speech.

What is a Constitutional right?

It's a limit of the government's power. The US Constitution can only give or take powers of the government.

So the First Amendment prevents the US govt from doing certain things.

The text of the 1A says "Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

Therefore no laws shall be made that can take away people's freedom of speech. Which means the executive can't carry out laws that don't exist and the Supreme Court can't rule that any law that does abridge freedom of speech is constitutional.

When Biden went to talk to Zuckerberg did Biden make a law that abridged people's freedom of speech? No. Did he execute a law that was unconstitutional? No. Did he do anything where there is no law? No.

Lots of "NO"s there.

The theory of rights, on the other hand says you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. You're talking about principles, that's a principle of rights.

Human rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law,[6] and imposing an obligation on individuals to respect the human rights of others;"

The Presidency has powers and it has a limitation of powers. Those limitations do NOT prevent it from talking to other people about things like "don't publish this or that", it's that simple. The limitations say it can't make laws, which therefore implies PUNISHMENT for doing such a thing.

Meta can do whatever it likes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What is a Constitutional right?

It's a limit of the government's power. The US Constitution can only give or take powers of the government.

So the First Amendment prevents the US govt from doing certain things.

The text of the 1A says "Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

Therefore no laws shall be made that can take away people's freedom of speech. Which means the executive can't carry out laws that don't exist and the Supreme Court can't rule that any law that does abridge freedom of speech is constitutional.

When Biden went to talk to Zuckerberg did Biden make a law that abridged people's freedom of speech? No. Did he execute a law that was unconstitutional? No. Did he do anything where there is no law? No.

Lots of "NO"s there.

Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant. I’ve already said twice that Biden did not violate the letter of the 1A. But I and many others believe he went against the spirit or principle of the 1A by requesting a social media company to censor user content of what he deemed misinformation.

Not only did his actions go against the principle of the 1A, he was in no position to decide what was misinformation because the government had no fucking clue what they were doing. No one really understand the nature of covid or what to expect so they were flying blind from the start.

The theory of rights, on the other hand says you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. You're talking about principles, that's a principle of rights.

Okay. What’s your point?

Human rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law,[6] and imposing an obligation on individuals to respect the human rights of others;"

The Presidency has powers and it has a limitation of powers. Those limitations do NOT prevent it from talking to other people about things like "don't publish this or that", it's that simple. The limitations say it can't make laws, which therefore implies PUNISHMENT for doing such a thing.

Meta can do whatever it likes.

Yes, Meta can do whatever it likes. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that if Biden respected the principle of the 1A; that we have the right to say what we want, he would never have made the request.

If I were president, I would never have made the request, even with a gun to my head.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant. I’ve already said twice that Biden did not violate the letter of the 1A. But I and many others believe he went against the spirit or principle of the 1A by requesting a social media company to censor user content of what he deemed misinformation.

Not only did his actions go against the principle of the 1A, he was in no position to decide what was misinformation because the government had no fucking clue what they were doing. No one really understand the nature of covid or what to expect so they were flying blind from the start.


Okay. What’s your point?

Yes, Meta can do whatever it likes. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that if Biden respected the principle of the 1A; that we have the right to say what we want, he would never have made the request.

If I were president, I would never have made the request, even with a gun to my head.

Sigh

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sigh

Exactly: sigh.

I am honestly baffled as to why you see no problem with Biden asking a social media company to censor user content knowing we have a right to free speech.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Exactly: sigh.

I am honestly baffled as to why you see no problem with Biden asking a social media company to censor user content knowing we have a right to free speech.

Because I understand free speech.

I can't be bothered to explain things to you, for you to then turn around and throw nothing at me as a reason why you're right.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Because I understand free speech.

I don’t think you do understand free speech as it is laid out in the Constitution. Considerations such as misinformation are completely irrelevant and change nothing: we have the right to say what we want. Do you understand this?

I can't be bothered to explain things to you, for you to then turn around and throw nothing at me as a reason why you're right.

Half of what you’ve “explained” is patently false. The right to free speech as laid out in the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with speech between citizens. It also does not give the government the responsibility to intervene in free speech challenges between citizens.

It means the government cannot censor speech or enact laws to prevent it in any way. This makes Biden’s actions, if not outright illegal or unconstitutional, chickenshit.

 

[jotathought]

What is your right to free speech? Does it mean you have the right to say anything you want, wherever you want?

Yes .. and if you say the wrong things, like threatening a President with death or harm, you'll pay the consequences. The thing is, Facebook is a private organization, so First Amendment rights don't apply to it.

The UK is locking up people who incited violence on social media, and their riots lasted less than a week. In the US nothing was done about it and the violence went on for a long time.

""Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure," Zuckerberg wrote. "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it."

So, the government went and said "we'd like you to take this down" and they said "no" and that was that.

What's wrong with that? They didn't lock anyone up, which is what freedom of speech is all about.

Facebook intentionally censored information about COVID, and they and other tech companies like Google and YouTube continue to do so. Even posting information from medical experts against COVID was censored. Why would anyone support a platform that continues to change the reality of things and contribute hundreds of millions to skew an election?

 

[jotathought]

Because I understand free speech.

I can't be bothered to explain things to you, for you to then turn around and throw nothing at me as a reason why you're right.

Censoring results and speech by the government with a private organization is 'free speech?'

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don’t think you do understand free speech as it is laid out in the Constitution. Considerations such as misinformation are completely irrelevant and change nothing: we have the right to say what we want. Do you understand this?

Half of what you’ve “explained” is patently false. The right to free speech as laid out in the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with speech between citizens. It also does not give the government the responsibility to intervene in free speech challenges between citizens.

It means the government cannot censor speech or enact laws to prevent it in any way. This makes Biden’s actions, if not outright illegal or unconstitutional, chickenshit.

I explained it. You just say "no".

Spot the difference.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I explained it. You just say "no".

Spot the difference.

I already told you that half of what you explained was incorrect. That’s the only difference I spotted.

 

[Marener]

Look it up and stop watching cnn. You proved yourself a tool that will believe anything they say and they lie constantly. Trump was right and you loons crucified him over it. The democrat party wanted as many deaths as they could get. To make Trump look bad, they knew the entire time ivermectin would help. But the story part is more died under Biden. Why don't you stop hating and quit listening to what the democrat party wants you to believe.

I looked it up. The CDC does not say ivermectin is a treatment for COVID. Stop watching Fox News.

Trump was the one saying hydroxychloroquine was a miracle drug and was 100% wrong on that.

 

[Marener]

COVID misinformation spread on social media sites got many thousands of people killed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I already told you that half of what you explained was incorrect. That’s the only difference I spotted.

Yeah.... you told me... told me what? Nothing. Just what you've made up.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yeah.... you told me... told me what? Nothing. Just what you've made up.

You said: “Free speech in this case is: The government can say whatever it likes, as long as it doesn't lock people up for speech which is protected.”

The constitutional right to free speech has absolutely nothing to do with what the government has the right to say.

You also said: “Literally had they gone to Meta and said "do this, or there will be consequences" then yes, it might have violated the 1A.”

I never said the 1A was violated.

You also said: “The "principle" of the freedom of speech is this: You can say whatever you like, as long as it doesn't infringe other people's freedoms.”

1.) As far as I know, there is no law or amendment about free speech between citizens.

2.) The principle of the 1A is free speech without government infringement. This is why, as I said, Biden’s actions are questionable.

You also said: “Meta can say "fuck you" or "we're ever so sorry sire, but we would rather not" or whatever.

And that's what happened.”

But it was NOT what happened. Meta acquiesced to presidential and government pressure and censored user content.

Half the things you’ve said have either been patently false, a misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment or due to misconstruction of my words.