JD Vance on free speech

[ColonelAngus]

Twitter is not censoring anti Trump and Musk content like Twitter was censoring anti Biden and Harris content.

THERE IS MORE FREE SPEECH ON TWITTER NOW.

 

[Marener]

I keep pointing out that you only care when Republicans do this.

You’re desperate to change the subject to me rather than acknowledge your own fascist statements.

Again, it’s pathetic.

Why can’t you stay on topic and tell us again what makes speech intended to sway voters not covered by the first amendment?

I know! Because you can’t defend it. You’re not smart enough. You were told to believe it and don’t know why. Now you’re stuck!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Germany's law on speech is none of Vance's business.

How very noteworthy that pknopp's first response is to demand the muzzling of free speech.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Germany throws people in jail for free speech.

They are back to the 1930s.

Congratulations, NAZIS ARE BACK IN GERMANY.

 

[martybegan]

You’re desperate to change the subject to me rather than acknowledge your own fascist statements.

Again, it’s pathetic.

Why can’t you stay on topic and tell us again what makes speech intended to sway voters not covered by the first amendment?

I know! Because you can’t defend it. You’re not smart enough. You were told to believe it and don’t know why. Now you’re stuck!

It's the same topic, you just don't think it is because you are a hack hypocrite.

 

[Marener]

Germany throws people in jail for free speech.

They are back to the 1930s.

Congratulations, NAZIS ARE BACK IN GERMANY.

It's the same topic, you just don't think it is because you are a hack hypocrite.

Nope. What I believe has nothing to do with your assertion that speech isn’t protected when it’s used to attempt to persuade voters (not to vote for Trump).

What you’re doing is desperately trying to avoid defending this because you just don’t know how to. You’re just following the programming.

First step is to defend Musk.
Second step is to change the subject when challenged.
Third step is to launch childish insults to cover up the failures of step one and two.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Dems 2025 = NAZIS 1939

 

[martybegan]

Nope. What I believe has nothing to do with your assertion that speech isn’t protected when it’s used to attempt to persuade voters (not to vote for Trump).

What you’re doing is desperately trying to avoid defending this because you just don’t know how to. You’re just following the programming.

First step is to defend Musk.
Second step is to change the subject when challenged.
Third step is to launch childish insults to cover up the failures of step one and two.

Again, you guys scream election interference all the fucking time.

 

[Marener]

Again, you guys scream election interference all the fucking time.

Again, changing the subject. Why are you screaming "election interference" to criminalize speech you don't like?

You think that's okay?

 

[martybegan]

Again, changing the subject. Why are you screaming "election interference" to criminalize speech you don't like?

You think that's okay?

It's not speech, it's actions.

And Vance can say what he wants, until they are actually charged, who the fuck cares?

 

[Marener]

It's not speech, it's actions.

And Vance can say what he wants, until they are actually charged, who the fuck cares?

The fuck it is. Editorial decisions are protected speech, see Miami Herald v Tornillo. The idea that a news agency can't exercise editorial discretion is clearly unconstitutional.

Who cares if the leaders of this country are saying fascist things and convincing their followers that these fascist things are correct?

Gosh, I can't imagine why someone would care about that. You just want us to ignore the direction the country is going?

 

[martybegan]

The fuck it is. Editorial decisions are protected speech, see Miami Herald v Tornillo. The idea that a news agency can't exercise editorial discretion is clearly unconstitutional.

Who cares if the leaders of this country are saying fascist things and convincing their followers that these fascist things are correct?

Gosh, I can't imagine why someone would care about that. You just want us to ignore the direction the country is going?

Hiding Kamala's idiocy, "editorial decision"

Fuh fuh fuh, Fascist, fuh fuh fuh


The country is going in a great direction, assmuncher.

 

[Marener]

Hiding Kamala's idiocy, "editorial decision"

Fuh fuh fuh, Fascist, fuh fuh fuh


The country is going in a great direction, assmuncher.

Yes, deciding what to air and what not to air is the definition of an editorial decision.

Tell me what is illegal about that?

 

[Stann]

‘This is Orwellian’: JD Vance EXPOSES Germany's strict laws on free speech | Blaze Media

Vice President JD Vance isn’t afraid of ruffling any feathers, and he made this clear when he condemned Europe for its growing censorship laws. “Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-U.S. relationships,” Vance posted on X. “This is...

www.theblaze.com

Does free speech lead to dictatorship as the Left is trying to convince people today?

Vice President JD Vance isn’t afraid of ruffling any feathers, and he made this clear when he condemned Europe for its growing censorship laws.

“Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-U.S. relationships,” Vance posted on X. “This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the U.S. must reject this lunacy.”

Vance wrote this on a quote tweet of a clip on "60 Minutes" that went viral, where German prosecutors calmly confirmed just how Orwellian their country really is.

“It’s illegal to display Nazi symbolism, a swastika, or deny the Holocaust, that’s clear,” the "60 Minutes" reporter told the prosecutors, before asking, “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?”

“Yes,” the prosecutors answered in unison.

“And it’s a crime to insult them online as well?” the reporter asked.

“Yes, the fine could be even higher if you insult someone on the internet,” one prosecutor answered. “Because on the internet, it stays there. If we are talking here face to face, you insult me, I insult you, OK, finish. But if you are on the internet, if I insult you or a politician, that sticks around forever.”


The prosecutors also explained that under German law, the spread of malicious gossip, violent threats, and fake quotes are also grounds for punishment. When charged, the punishment is usually a steep fine.

“That’s pretty, pretty chilling,” Pat Gray of “Pat Gray Unleashed” comments, and Keith Malinak is in full agreement.

“Less than three generations, we went from one fascist to another,” Malinak says, shocked.

“They’re just sitting there like, ‘Hey, yeah, we’re proud of this. This is great,’ and laugh about it,” Gray continues, adding, “and she’s smiling as she’s asking them the questions.”

Today's headline tell it all. After trump blatantly lied by saying the Ukraine started the war. Then Zelensky corrected him that Russia invaded them and started the war. JD Vance's reply to Zelensky was essentially to shut up. So much for him and his stance on free and any kind of honest speech.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, deciding what to air and what not to air is the definition of an editorial decision.

Tell me what is illegal about that?

Trump's position was it violates campaign finance laws, because the edits were to improve her positions, not for time constraints as they claim. An "in kind" unreported contribution.

You can agree or disagree with that position at your leisure.

I'm sure that's where Vance is going as well.

 

[pknopp]

Today's headline tell it all. After trump blatantly lied by saying the Ukraine started the war. Then Zelensky corrected him that Russia invaded them and started the war. JD Vance's reply to Zelensky was essentially to shut up. So much for him and his stance on free and any kind of honest speech.

No Vance fan but telling someone to shut up is also free speech.

 

[Marener]

Trump's position was it violates campaign finance laws, because the edits were to improve her positions, not for time constraints as they claim. An "in kind" unreported contribution.

You can agree or disagree with that position at your leisure.

I'm sure that's where Vance is going as well.

Free exercise of speech is not and never can be considered an "in kind" contribution. If that were the case, everything anyone said in support of one candidate or another would be considered a campaign donation and that's fucking stupid.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that's not Trump's position and you just made it up.

 

[martybegan]

Free exercise of speech is not and never can be considered an "in kind" contribution. If that were the case, everything anyone said in support of one candidate or another would be considered a campaign donation and that's fucking stupid.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that's not Trump's position and you just made it up.

Democrats accuse Cornel West campaign of accepting illegal in-kind contributions

Trump falsely claimed Harris’ 60 Minutes interview broke law

 

[Marener]

Democrats accuse Cornel West campaign of accepting illegal in-kind contributions

Trump falsely claimed Harris’ 60 Minutes interview broke law

In kind campaign contributions are definitely a thing, but the link you have is not an example of a situation similar to this. An outside organization was paying people to work on behalf of West, which is exactly the kind of thing that would violate campaign finance law. It's spending that occurred on behalf a campaign that was not reported as a contribution.

That's not what happened here. 60 minutes made an editorial decision. That's free speech, plain and simple. There's no donation here. Speech isn't an expenditure.

 

[martybegan]

In kind campaign contributions are definitely a thing, but the link you have is not an example of a situation similar to this. An outside organization was paying people to work on behalf of West, which is exactly the kind of thing that would violate campaign finance law. It's spending that occurred on behalf a campaign that was not reported as a contribution.

That's not what happened here. 60 minutes made an editorial decision. That's free speech, plain and simple. There's no donation here. Speech isn't an expenditure.

60 minutes edited their interview to make Kamala look better, not for any time constraints.

By taking a side they made an in kind contribution to the campaign.