I understand the opposition to Marjorie Taylor Green

[Seymour Flops]

So, what you are saying is that she did not actual question them as she was supposed to.

What do you mean, "was supposed to?"

Where is that in the constitution?

 

[maybelooking]

She should have had a fake cry, ranted and raved, and didn't a full on acting job like the recent shit show by the squad.....then the liberals here would be ok with with her!!!!

 

[Seymour Flops]

How is it an abuse of power to a private business to make business decisions?

At the request of the FBI, you mean?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What do you mean, "was supposed to?"

Where is that in the constitution?

That is the point of hearings, to question those you demanded appear before the body.

If all they are doing to do is make speeches so people like you can get a woody, why demand the Execs appear before the body?

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is the point of hearings, to question those you demanded appear before the body.

If all they are doing to do is make speeches so people like you can get a woody, why demand the Execs appear before the body?

I would agree with that if everyone who wanted them called to the hearing only made speeches and did not ask them questions. But MTG did it to make her point that they had silenced her. She lost nothing by doing so, since the witnesses had already made it clear that they could remember nothing useful about their days at Twitter.

I know you believe that Twitter had a right - and a duty - to silence anyone the FBI, or CDC, or the DNC asked them to silence, but the asking in the first place was an unconstitutional violation of the rights of MTG's constituents to hear from her over a purported "neutral public platform," so I won't be shedding any aligator tears for those execs that got shitcanned.

 

[kyzr]

How is it an abuse of power to a private business to make business decisions?

How is silencing just conservatives and millions of views a "business decision"? Its not. Its a violation of "free speech".

We're NOT as focused on Twitter as on the FBI influencing Twitter to sway the 2020 election.

Why was the FBI telling Twitter what to censor? Since when is the FBI an arm of the DNC?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I would agree with that if everyone who wanted them called to the hearing only made speeches and did not ask them questions. But MTG did it to make her point that they had silenced her. She lost nothing by doing so, since the witnesses had already made it clear that they could remember nothing useful about their days at Twitter.

But they did not silence her. Twitter is not the only venue for expression. If it were then you might have a point, but as it stand you do not, and neither does she.

I know you believe that Twitter had a right - and a duty - to silence anyone the FBI, or CDC, or the DNC asked them to silence, but the asking in the first place was an unconstitutional violation of the rights of MTG's constituents to hear from her over a purported "neutral public platform," so I won't be shedding any aligator tears for those execs that got shitcanned.

What I believe is that Twitter as a private company can run their business as they wish. Nobody has a god given right to be on Twitter. There is no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

Just as I believe the baker should be able to say "no, I will not bake that cake" and the diner to say "no, we will not serve them" I believe Twitter and FB and even this site have the right to say "we do not want you on our platform"

I do not see how anyone that once pretended to have libertarian tendencies would disagree with that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How is silencing just conservatives and millions of views a "business decision"? Its not. Its a violation of "free speech".

No it is not. A private entity can literally not violate your free speech as free speech is a function of the Govt.

We're NOT as focused on Twitter as on the FBI influencing Twitter to sway the 2020 election.

Why was the FBI telling Twitter what to censor?

Then why are the FBI folks that did that not being demanded to appear before the body?

 

[kyzr]

No it is not. A private entity can literally not violate your free speech as free speech is a function of the Govt.
Then why are the FBI folks that did that not being demanded to appear before the body?

1. Is the FBI part of the government, did it use Twitter to violate conservative's "free speech" rights? Yes or No?
2. Stay tuned, the FBI will be subpoenaed, I'm curious if the FBI will let them testify.

 

[Batcat]

She's a friggin moron. Not fit to serve in Congress. Has no grasp of policy. Doesn't even make an effort.
The result of the lowest common denominator on the right.

By the way, she looked like a complete idiot..again today.

What is your opinion on AOC?

 

[Mac1958]

She's a friggin moron. Not fit to serve in Congress. Has no grasp of policy. Doesn't even make an effort.
The result of the lowest common denominator on the right.

By the way, she looked like a complete idiot..again today.

You'll notice that the rank & file don't cheer and point to articulate, intelligent, informed, reasoned comments and actions.

They cheer yelling, attacks, insults and name-calling, and they revere those who dwell down in that behavioral hole.

The party used to be better than this.

 

[Seymour Flops]

But they did not silence her. Twitter is not the only venue for expression. If it were then you might have a point, but as it stand you do not, and neither does she.

Since it was at the behest of the government, it was government who was silencing her.

What I believe is that Twitter as a private company can run their business as they wish. Nobody has a god given right to be on Twitter. There is no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

Just as I beleive the baker should be able to say "no, I will not bake that cake" and the diner to say "no, we will not serve them" I belive Twiter and FB and even this site have the right to say "we do not want you on our platform"

I do not see how anyone that once pretended to have libertarian tendencies would disagree with that.

I would believe all that fully, if not for two things:

1) It was government doing the silencing. The Twitter exec who did most of the talking said that he thought the Biden laptop story from the New York Post was fine. Then his boss sent down the order to censor it. It was the FBI who were telling Twitter and other platforms the lie that the laptop was disinformation. That violates the U.S. Constitution.

2) Twitter claims to be a neutral public platform. Due to that claim, they get special protection from libel and slander laws. If someone posted on Twitter that I was a groomer, that would damage my professional reputation in an actionable way, since I'm a teacher. I can sue the poster, but if I sue Twitter they can say, "we don't pick and choose what people post, so we're not responsible," Meanwhile they absolutely are picking and choosing, so that is a lie.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Is the FBI part of the government, did it use Twitter to violate conservative's "free speech" rights? Yes or No?
2. Stay tuned, the FBI will be subpoenaed, I'm curious if the FBI will let them testify.

1. Then the Govt did wrong, not Twitter. They have no obligation to let anyone on their platform.

2. Time will tell

 

[j-mac]

That is the point of hearings, to question those you demanded appear before the body.

If all they are doing to do is make speeches so people like you can get a woody, why demand the Execs appear before the body?

Maybe you should run so you can change the world….lol

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Since it was at the behest of the government, it was government who was silencing her.

Then the Govt was in the wrong, not Twitter. Twitter has every right to do what it did.

1) It was government doing the silencing. The Twitter exec who did most of the talking said that he thought the Biden laptop story from the New York Post was fine. Then his boss sent down the order to censor it. It was the FBI who were telling Twitter and other platforms the lie that the laptop was disinformation. That violates the U.S. Constitution.

The FBI violated the Constitution, not Twitter.

2) Twitter claims to be a neutral public platform. Due to that claim, they get special protection from libel and slander laws. If someone posted on Twitter that I was a groomer, that would damage my professional reputation in an actionable way, since I'm a teacher. I can sue the poster, but if I sue Twitter they can say, "we don't pick and choose what people post, so we're not responsible," Meanwhile they absolutely are picking and choosing, so that is a lie.

Twitter does not get those for being neutral, they get those for not being a publisher. Same as this site and every other forum on the internet.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Interesting case for those interested:

The Supreme Court Is Considering Whether the Government Can Dodge the First Amendment by Outsourcing Its Power | ACLU

www.aclu.org

As New York City is a hub for artistic self-expression, it makes sense that its “off-off-off-off Broadway” has reflected the creative pulse of the city. A nonprofit called Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN) operates the public access channels for the borough. By law, it must broadcast all legal content that it gets in the order received.

Several years ago, New York artists and activists DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced a video and submitted it to MNN, which aired it once but then banned it because it supposedly threatened the guards who work at MNN’s building. The network also suspended Halleck for one year and Melendez for life from submitting content, so they sued MNN for violating their free speech rights.

. . .

The “state action doctrine” asks whether conduct can be fairly attributed to the state or to a private party. As we argue in our friend-of-the-court brief supporting Halleck and Melendez, in this case, MNN’s broadcast decisions are state action. New York City has implemented its very specific vision for public access channels through MNN. Because the city’s first-come, first-served policy leaves MNN no room to decide what to broadcast, or even in what order to broadcast videos, it has made the network a virtual arm of the government. That means that the First Amendment applies to MNN, and it cannot pick and choose videos based on what’s in them.

The government can’t shirk its constitutional responsibilities by delegating power to private entities. Nor can it avoid its constitutional obligations by creating rules or entering contracts that leave a private entity with essentially no decisions to make at all. The First Amendment would mean little if the government could simply avoid it by outsourcing its power to private entities to decide what is worthy of public discourse and what must be silenced.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Maybe you should run so you can change the world….lol

The way to change the world is to start at the local level. And that is what I am working on.

 

[j-mac]

You'll notice that the rank & file don't cheer and point to articulate, intelligent, informed, reasoned comments and actions.

They cheer yelling, attacks, insults and name-calling, and they revere those who dwell down in that behavioral hole.

The party used to be better than this.

 

[j-mac]

The way to change the world is to start at the local level. And that is what I am working on.

Where are you running? And for what position? So I might donate to your campaign….

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where are you running? And for what position? So I might donate to your campaign….

I am currently a volunteer for the Community Improvement Board and have requested to fill an empty seat on the Planning Commission which is appointed by the mayor. I just moved to my current city in Oct so I missed the chance to run for one of the elected offices so that will have to wait.

We also moved into an area with a HOA so I volunteered for the board and am the Treasurer/Secretary. This has given me more exposure to my new city than I expected and has been a boon in my attempts to join the city government.