DeSantis of Florida pulling Billions fromBlackRock.

[lg325]

Florida, DeSantis yank billions in investments from 'woke' BlackRock over ESG investing Whether you like him or not he just doesn't just talk the talk he walks the walk as the saying goes. The man gets things done he reminds me of past governors we have had here I Florida just that they were Democrats.

 

[Skylar]

Florida, DeSantis yank billions in investments from 'woke' BlackRock over ESG investing Whether you like him or not he just doesn't just talk the talk he walks the walk as the saying goes. The man gets things done he reminds me of past governors we have had here I Florida just that they were Democrats.

Yeah, remember when Disney excercised its free speech and disagreed with the governor publically.....and DeSantis used the power of the State to punish Disney, incurring 1 Billion dollars in debt for the State of Florida in the process?

Nothing says 'free speech' like the State punishing those who say something the State doesn't like.

 

[Esdraelon]

Nothing says 'free speech' like the State punishing those who say something the State doesn't like.

Poor, put upon Disney, eh? P'raps had they not lied through their corporate teeth about the anti-grooming law he passed, he'd have left them alone. As it is, he NAILED their ass to the wall and their stock hasn't shown any signs of bouncing back. They had the sweetest of all deals in Florida and went and tried "woke". The "don't say gay" bullshit was a straight up lie that only partisan fools believed. That law stopped teachers of kindergartners to third grade from teaching kids about sex. Any person who thinks that should be happening, needs to be educated with extreme force.

 

[Skylar]

Poor, put upon Disney, eh? P'raps had they not lied through their corporate teeth about the anti-grooming law he passed, he'd have left them alone. As it is, he NAILED their ass to the wall and their stock hasn't shown any signs of bouncing back. They had the sweetest of all deals in Florida and went and tried "woke". The "don't say gay" bullshit was a straight up lie that only partisan fools believed. That law stopped teachers of kindergartners to third grade from teaching kids about sex. Any person who thinks that should be happening, needs to be educated with extreme force.

So its free speech....unless you don't like the speech. Then you're cool with the State punishing those who contradict it.

I don't think free speech means what you think it means.

 

[MisterBeale]

So its free speech....unless you don't like the speech. Then you're cool with the State punishing those who contradict it.

I don't think free speech means what you think it means.

DHS LEAKS: Starting in 2020, DHS began meeting with Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and more

https://thepostmillennial.com/dhs-leaks-starting-in-2020-dhs-began-meeting-with-twitter-facebook-wikipedia-and-more-monthly-to-coordinate-content-moderation-efforts Very illegal.

www.usmessageboard.com

Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents

https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html but i thought they weren't doing this? now big tech is part of the government?

www.usmessageboard.com

Twitter Files on free speech suppression soon to be published

This could be interesting if there are any smoking guns in these files. The authoritarian left, who denied they were doing any of this even though we all knew they were, may finally get exposed

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Skylar]

DHS LEAKS: Starting in 2020, DHS began meeting with Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and more

https://thepostmillennial.com/dhs-leaks-starting-in-2020-dhs-began-meeting-with-twitter-facebook-wikipedia-and-more-monthly-to-coordinate-content-moderation-efforts Very illegal.

www.usmessageboard.com

Over 50 Biden Administration Employees, 12 US Agencies Involved in Social Media Censorship Push: Documents

https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-agencies-involved-in-social-media-censorship-push-documents_4704349.html but i thought they weren't doing this? now big tech is part of the government?

www.usmessageboard.com

Twitter Files on free speech suppression soon to be published

This could be interesting if there are any smoking guns in these files. The authoritarian left, who denied they were doing any of this even though we all knew they were, may finally get exposed

www.usmessageboard.com

So...whataboutry.

And you do get that there's a difference between a private busienss refusing to host speech.....and the State using the power of the legislature to punish those who disagree with the State, yes?

The 1st amendment's first word isn't Twitter.

 

[multivita-man]

At some point, Red states are gonna take it one step too far and corporations are going to realize that the tax breaks may not be worth it after all. Not to say that they'd prefer to do business in NY over GA or TX, but they might move to more moderate states, or at least states where short little men don't have Napoleon syndrome.

 

[Skylar]

At some point, Red states are gonna take it one step too far and corporations are going to realize that the tax breaks may not be worth it after all. Not to say that they'd prefer to do business in NY over GA or TX, but they might move to more moderate states, or at least states where short little men don't have Napoleon syndrome.

Perhaps. The business of America is business.

Most of the rest is marketing.

 

[MisterBeale]

So...whataboutry.

And you do get that there's a difference between a private busienss refusing to host speech.....and the State using the power of the legislature to punish those who disagree with the State, yes?

The 1st amendment's first word isn't Twitter.

If you aren't going to read threads, or find out what is going on, I am not going to hold your hand.

 

[Skylar]

If you aren't going to read threads, or find out what is going on, I am not going to hold your hand.

These are all private companies who can refuse to host speech.

FORCED speech is not freedom of speech.

And if you won't even read the 1st word of the 1st Amendment, I'm not going to hold your hand.

There's a significant difference between a private business refusing to host speech.....and State using the legislature to punish those who disagree with it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yeah, remember when Disney excercised its free speech and disagreed with the governor publically.....and DeSantis used the power of the State to punish Disney,

So...whataboutry.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. As demonstrated by the first word of the first Amendment.

Your examples are private businesses. Mine are the state punishing free speech because someone disagreed wtih them. And not just any State. But DeSantis' Florida.

 

[MisterBeale]

These are all private companies who can refuse to host speech.

FORCED speech is not freedom of speech.

And if you won't even read the 1st word of the 1st Amendment, I'm not going to hold your hand.

There's a significant difference between a private business refusing to host speech.....and State using the legislature to punish those who disagree with it.

Nope, not according the agreed upon TOS, which the government made them violate, which is in contra-indication of the first Amendment.

Damn? Are you from a foreign nation?




A business does not have a right to discriminate. They can only be treated as a content provider, under section 230, and NOT a publisher, as long as they are not making editorial decisions. As soon as the government is getting involved in influencing those decisions, they then become a publisher, not a provider. They lose their protection.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material​

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

Mine are the state punishing free speech because someone disagreed wtih them.

Wrong. By the state colluding with oligarchs who act as publishers, and limiting individuals' speech, the state is violating the peoples' first Amendment.

Either that, or you are just too obtuse to understand what fascism is.



If we were contacted here, at USMB, and told that we had to ban you, because someone at the STATE Dept. did not like what you were writing? That would be a violation of your first Amendment rights. I don't know how I can make this anymore plain for you.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, not according the agreed upon TOS, which the government made them violate, which is in contra-indication of the first Amendment.

The first amendment doesn't require businesses to host speech.

The first amendment doesn't mention private businesses at all. It mentions Congress. Exclusively.

The 14th amendment extends those prohibitions to states. Not twitter.

Thus, the State punishing free speech has profoundly different legal implications than a private business merely removing it from their property. The former is explicitly prohibited by 1st and 14th amendment.

The latter, not restricted by the Bill of Rights at all.

Damn? Are you from a foreign nation?




A business does not have a right to discriminate. They can only be treated as a content provider, under section 230, and NOT a publisher, as long as they are not making editorial decisions. As soon as the government is getting involved in influencing those decisions, they then become a publisher, not a provider. They lose their protection.

The word 'discrimination' doesn't appear anywhere in the law you cited. You've imagined it.

Nor are there any provisions for the elimination of provider status. You've imagined that too.

Businesses do have the right to set terms of service. Anyone joining their service agrees to this TOS. If a person violates it -according to the site- they are subject to removal.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material​

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

Wrong. By the state colluding with oligarchs who act as publishers, and limiting individuals' speech, the state is violating the peoples' first Amendment.

Either that, or you are just too obtuse to understand what fascism is.



If we were contacted here, at USMB, and told that we had to ban you, because someone at the STATE Dept. did not like what you were writing? That would be a violation of your first Amendment rights. I don't know how I can make this anymore plain for you.

All meaningless nonsense. There's no 'colluding with oligarchs' provisions in any law you've cited.

You imagined it all.

 

[Batcat]

So its free speech....unless you don't like the speech. Then you're cool with the State punishing those who contradict it.

I don't think free speech means what you think it means.

Do you support showing R and X rated films to children younger than nine years old. I don’t.

Very young children some, who still believe in Santa Claus, should not be groomed by their school teachers or convinced they need to change their sex. They need to be learning reading, writing and math.

 

[Skylar]

Do you support showing R and X rated films to children younger than nine years old. I don’t.

Very young children some, who still believe in Santa Claus, should not be groomed by their school teachers or convinced they need to change their sex. They need to be learning reading, writing and math not.

What do R and X rated films have to do with Disney being punished by Ron DeSantis for disagreeing with the State of Florida?

 

[MisterBeale]

The first amendment doesn't require businesses to host speech.

The first amendment doesn't mention private businesses at all. It mentions Congress. Exclusively.

The 14th amendment extends those prohibitions to states. Not twitter.

Thus, the State punishing free speech has profoundly different legal implications than a private business merely removing it from their property. The former is explicitly prohibited by 1st and 14th amendment.

The latter, not restricted by the Bill of Rights at all.



The word 'discrimination' doesn't appear anywhere in the law you cited. You've imagined it.

Nor are there any provisions for the elimination of provider status. You've imagined that too.

Businesses do have the right to set terms of service. Anyone joining their service agrees to this TOS. If a person violates it -according to the site- they are subject to removal.






All meaningless nonsense. There's no 'colluding with oligarchs' provisions in any law you've cited.

You imagined it all.

yup.

I can certainly see that as one interpretation.

I do not envy the judges, or the politicians that appoint judges, that let the fascists seize control of our democracy in such a disingenuous interpretation.

I guess we will have to see how things play out.

This is the latest that I could find on the case.


Your opinion and mine, are irrelevant.

Court is asked to order a stop to government-directed social media censorship​

A new appeal.
Court is asked to order a stop to government-directed social media censorship

 

[Skylar]

yup.

I can certainly see that as one interpretation.

I do not envy the judges, or the politicians that appoint judges, that let the fascists seize control of our democracy in such a disingenuous interpretation.

I guess we will have to see how things play out.

This is the latest that I could find on the case.


Your opinion and mine, are irrelevant.

Court is asked to order a stop to government-directed social media censorship​

A new appeal.
Court is asked to order a stop to government-directed social media censorship

Its 'fascist' for a private business to choose what it wants to host on its own property?

I don't think 'fascist' means what you think it means. As you seem to be using its a more of generic pejorative.

 

[MisterBeale]

What do R and X rated films have to do with Disney being punished by Ron DeSantis for disagreeing with the State of Florida?

About as much as the free speech of companies, has to do with what ESG NWO investing in the state of Florida.



Damn that hypocrisy. You slag someone for a slight deflection, but you inserted the first massive one.

Corporate Technocrats Use ESG To Drive Technocracy

ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) is a United Nations inspired global scam to drive the world into Sustainable Development (aka Technocracy), control all resources and kill capitalism and free market economics all at the same time. ESG is backed by the UN, the World Economic Forum and...

www.technocracy.news

ESG: The Big Lie Of Woke Capitalism

ESG is a step-child of "stakeholder capitalism" where unrelated, self-declared stakeholders get a seat at your table to tell you what you may or may not do. ESG is a thinly-veiled, disingenuous attempt to get control of companies and individuals. Who made this garbage up? Look no further than...

www.technocracy.news

Creators Of ESG Complain That Behavior Isn't Changing Fast Enough

This offers a little insight to the genesis and history of ESG ideology to kill coal, oil and natural gas through behavior modification. As Technocracy was primarily defined in the 1930s as the "science of social engineering", ESG is a potent weapon but it is failing to live up to its original...

www.technocracy.news

 

[MisterBeale]

Its 'fascist' for a private business to choose what it wants to host on its own property?

I don't think 'fascist' means what you think it means. As you seem to be using its a more of generic pejorative.

The economic system of Fascist nations is Dirigisme, or corporatism.

That is;

Dirigisme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When the giant corporations and the government are working hand in glove to control the thoughts and activities of the population? Yeah, that is fascism.