Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,899
- 1,530
No that wasn't proof of anything.Bullshit! I just posted proof of them doing so!
And even that did not violate your first amendment rights
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No that wasn't proof of anything.Bullshit! I just posted proof of them doing so!
Freedom of speech is fundamental in a free society.We already have limits on free speech
We don't need more
Where is it written that you have a right not to get your feelings hurt?
Soft living has shifted society to the left, and the media now dominated by younger people yet still in pursuit of revenue needs to follow. We are born naked, symbolizing our primal nature, freedom of speech is an acquired thing, not something we are born with. Young people will forgo those freedoms if it satisfies their emotions.
And we have it in abundance.Freedom of speech is fundamental in a free society.
Social media sites are privately owned but they are in public places. That is the public can read and write freely from and to these sites. Because of this, these companies should be obliged to respect the rights of the public and not practice censorship.Look none of that has any effect on your ability to say what you want.
You are not guaranteed an audience or a venue by the first amendment.
These social media sites are all privately owned. They have their own set of rules which you must agree to to post on their sites.
Even if you get banned from Twitter or wherever your free speech rights have not been violated because you can still post on other less restrictive sites. you can post your own blog, you can host your own website etc.
So there is no violation of the first amendment.
The government cannot compel any social media site to censor anyone
However, it led to here where there are links to proof of , and I quote: "A vast Censorship Enterprise"No that wasn't proof of anything.
And even that did not violate your first amendment rights
Not true.Social media sites are privately owned but they are in public places. That is the public can read and write freely from and to these sites. Because of this, these companies should be obliged to respect the rights of the public and not practice censorship.
Where are the violations of the first amendment?However, it led to here where there are links to proof of , and I quote: "A vast Censorship Enterprise"
It's highlitghted in the communications listed, even.Where are the violations of the first amendment?
Wrong. They would have no right to impose a term of service on what is a public place. It is not to be compared to a privately owned home as you are not violating anyone's privacy by looking in. If they were to choose to make it truly private, then to read or to write would require a password, a situation pragmatism would not allow as they would soon drop their contrived values for the sake of the money they presently earn by being public.Not true.
You must first agree to their terms of service.
It is a venue they provide it is not a public space. It's more like a room in a privately owned home on a public street
That depends on what is meant by ‘free speech.’shouldn’t we put some limits on free speech or possibly abandon the concept altogether?
Sorry but the government talking to businesses is not a violation of the first amendmentIt's highlitghted in the communications listed, even.
I already posted one example and there's many more there.
If you can't figure it out from there, I can't help you.
right which is why Twitter isn't a public space.Wrong. They would have no right to impose a term of service on what is a public place. It is not to be compared to a privately owned home as you are not violating anyone's privacy by looking in. If they were to choose to make it truly private, then to read or to write would require a password, a situation pragmatism would not allow as they would soon drop their contrived values for the sake of the money they presently earn by being public.
The only limits we have on free speech that I am currently aware of involve libel or public safety issues like inciting a riot.
What are examples of speech that has been banned by the government?
Twitter etc. relies on being in a public place to make money. If they were not 'public' you could not make a distinction between their site and one that has a door accessible by a password. They are in public they should respect the public!right which is why Twitter isn't a public space.
Any social media platform can delete posts and ban users because they are NOT public spaces they are privately funded websites. And all they do is sell space to advertisers and that does not make them public spaces.
You as a user are not paying for using these sites you are allowed to use them by the companies that own the sites and those companies have no obligation to you whatsoever and cannot violate your first amendment rights.
In the real world, one not dominated by 'our' X chromosome, the only people who would be allowed to vote would be adult males 25 years or older. Instead we let compassion decide these things, that's in the same way compassion is killing adult (white) males in the war (XvsY) it is fueling in the Ukraine.Southern States never banned black people from voting. They banned people that couldn’t read from voting.
There are laws vague enough to convict someone for what they say without saying they are guilty for what they said. I know firsthand about a law like that in North Carolina. I won’t elaborate because it would appear personal and not principle related.
Sorry but the government talking to businesses is not a violation of the first amendment
No one here has had their first amendment rights violated no one here has been censored by the government
it's not a public space it is a privately owned company. You all volunteer to use it and you all agree to the terms of service which no one ever reads.Twitter etc. relies on being in a public place to make money. If they were not 'public' you could not make a distinction between their site and one that has a door accessible by a password. They are in public they should respect the public!
Our only hope of enforcing this and protecting our free speech is the emergence of a new white queen, an unlikely outcome. Regardless we need to fight on, our duty as adult males even when fighting a war we cannot win. Disclaimers should not be used to violate our rights despite your defeatism.
anecdotalI have but I won’t get into it. I have been convicted of a Class 2 Misdemeanor in the State of North Carolina for something I said. I never threatened anybody. I never disturbed public safety. Free speech is not real. Beyond that I was also held in contempt of court for 2 days in jail for something I said on Facebook. So no, the freedom of speech does not exist. Low level courts do whatever the heck they want. To get justice you have to appeal. Freedom of speech does not exist. People that say otherwise have never pushed the envelope to see how strong the freedom of speech is.
As of this moment until April 8, 2022 there are certain things I could say that would get me thrown in jail. Yes. This is censorship. Freedom of speech does not exist.