LGBT Staff Won't Serve Christians

[martybegan]

They are, but they're very localized and easy to avoid or change. A federal takeover of social media is power the feds will never give back. And both of your idiot parties will use it to thwart the other.

What takeover?

They would just be made to follow the 1st amendment in the common area.

 

[Resnic]

I can't say I'd want to give my money to a lgbrstuv"!++&_ business anyway.

The past couple years blacks and fags have worn out there welcome with me. if I know a business is owned by one of them I make it a point not to go there.

Before I didn't care, but they as a whole have gotten in everyone's face so much that now I dislike them and hope all of their businesses go bankrupt.

 

[Marener]

The virtual space is a commons, and created to be such. Once they asked for 230 protections they brought it on themselves.


So either they are a publisher, or they are not, and if they are not, then the space can be regulated.

You can’t regulate the first amendment out of existence, fascist.


You can’t make a common area out of a private space because you want to.

Follow the constitution. Is that too much to ask?

 

[dblack]

The virtual space is a commons, and created to be such. Once they asked for 230 protections they brought it on themselves.

I didn't ask for 230. I'm all for repealing it. It's nothing more than lame excuse for another federal power grab. Repealing it would change nothing, but if it would take away one of statists' excuses, I'm all for it.

What I don't get is how you can be so short sighted about it. Republican and Democrats alike always fantasize about ubiquitous regulation as though only their party will be in charge. Then, when the other party does manage to get back in power they shit themselves in terror.

 

[dblack]

You can’t regulate the first amendment out of existence, fascist.

It's gonna happen. Now that Republicans are all-in on statism, what's to stop it?

 

[Marener]

It's gonna happen. Now that Republicans are all-in on statism, what's to stop it?

SCOTUS?

Oh wait.

 

[martybegan]

You can’t regulate the first amendment out of existence, fascist.


You can’t make a common area out of a private space because you want to.

Follow the constitution. Is that too much to ask?

No, you just let your corporate masters do it as a proxy for the government and your side. And your side doesn't "Regulate", it suppresses, or looks the other way when someone else does it.

Actually check NYC's public common area laws based on air rights to see it's been done before.

When your side does is for RKBA and Free Exercise then we can talk, until then go fuck yourself with an AIDS infected tire iron.

 

[martybegan]

I didn't ask for 230. I'm all for repealing it. It's nothing more than lame excuse for another federal power grab. Repealing it would change nothing, but if it would take away one of statists' excuses, I'm all for it.

What I don't get is how you can be so short sighted about it. Republican and Democrats alike always fantasize about ubiquitous regulation as though only their party will be in charge. Then, when the other party does manage to get back in power they shit themselves in terror.

Then they can be a publisher, and liable for it. If you can't be held liable for it, it ain't yours.

Who's short sighted? I'm trying to keep the system from SJW's who want to destroy it enough to own it.

That you see both sides as equally bad makes you an idiot.

 

[dblack]

Who's short sighted? I'm trying to keep the system from SJW's who want to destroy it enough to own it.

Yeah, I know your afraid, but it's no excuse to tear up the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

No, you just let your corporate masters do it as a proxy for the government and your side. And your side doesn't "Regulate", it suppresses, or looks the other way when someone else does it.

Actually check NYC's public common area laws based on air rights to see it's been done before.

When your side does is for RKBA and Free Exercise then we can talk, until then go fuck yourself with an AIDS infected tire iron.

NYC has private spaces made for public use only in voluntary agreement between the property owners and the city in exchange for certain government benefits.

Let’s make this clear. You have no constitutional right to be on anyone’s social media platform. Therefore, you can’t suppress anyone’s right that doesn’t exist in the first place.

This just proves you’re a hypocrite. You want to keep government from forcing a baker to bake a cake but you want the government to force social media to host Nazis.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, I know your afraid, but it's no excuse to tear up the Constitution.

Not tearing it up at all.

 

[martybegan]

NYC has private spaces made for public use only in voluntary agreement between the property owners and the city in exchange for certain government benefits.

Let’s make this clear. You have no constitutional right to be on anyone’s social media platform. Therefore, you can’t suppress anyone’s right that doesn’t exist in the first place.

This just proves you’re a hypocrite. You want to keep government from forcing a baker to bake a cake but you want the government to force social media to host Nazis.

If they want to be considered an open space, and want 230 protections I sure as hell have a right to regulate their ass. They get government benefits from 230, they have to accept regulation, just like those building owners do.

The issue came up when the social media companies equated anyone with views to the right of Mitt Romney as Nazis, and treated them as such.

Is saying "a woman cannot be a man" being a Nazi? Should that be a bannable statement?

 

[dblack]

Not tearing it up at all.

Oh, I forgot. It's a "living document".

Have you noticed how so many of the arguments that you're making are textbook, big-government liberal excuses?

 

[martybegan]

Oh, I forgot. It's a "living document".

Have you noticed how so many of the arguments that you're making are textbook, big-government liberal excuses?

No, it isn't. But again 230 protections remove the responsibility of the platform as a publisher, thus the contents are not their speech. It then becomes simply a matter of regulating a company benefitting from government protections.

 

[dblack]

No, it isn't. But again 230 protections remove the responsibility of the platform as a publisher, thus the contents are not their speech. It then becomes simply a matter of regulating a company benefitting from government protections.

And, wallah! State run social media.

Have you read much about China?

 

[Marener]

If they want to be considered an open space, and want 230 protections I sure as hell have a right to regulate their ass. They get government benefits from 230, they have to accept regulation, just like those building owners do.

The issue came up when the social media companies equated anyone with views to the right of Mitt Romney as Nazis, and treated them as such.

Is saying "a woman cannot be a man" being a Nazi? Should that be a bannable statement?

Go ahead and regulate them, but you can’t make unconstitutional regulations. The companies still have first amendment rights and section 230 doesn’t change that.

Imagine I passed a law saying I get to drive your car anytime I want but you still have to pay for it. But wait! It’s your car! Okay. Then the law says you’re not legally responsible for any damage I do when driving it. Is it still your car? Obviously. I can’t just declare it public property. That would be unconstitutional.

Elon Musk found out what it’s like to try to be a “free speech absolutist” and wound up banning Kanye for posting a swastika (which is protected speech by your 1st amendment). So despite the fact that you try to play down the prospect of supporting Nazi speech, we have extremely recent evidence that this is an actual problem that you’re probably too pathetic to address.

 

[martybegan]

And, wallah, state run social media.

Have you read much about China?

Argumentum ad absurdum.

This isn't saying what to allow, it's saying if you get protected by us, you have to follow the same rules as us.

 

[dblack]

Argumentum ad absurdum.

This isn't saying what to allow, it's saying if you get protected by us, you have to follow the same rules as us.

It's such a common statist pattern. Horn your way in with intrusive regulation, and then use it as an excuse for ever more intrusive regulation.

All because you're terrified of queers and brown people.

 

[martybegan]

Go ahead and regulate them, but you can’t make unconstitutional regulations. The companies still have first amendment rights and section 230 doesn’t change that.

Imagine I passed a law saying I get to drive your car anytime I want but you still have to pay for it. But wait! It’s your car! Okay. Then the law says you’re not legally responsible for any damage I do when driving it. Is it still your car? Obviously. I can’t just declare it public property. That would be unconstitutional.

Elon Musk found out what it’s like to try to be a “free speech absolutist” and wound up banning Kanye for posting a swastika (which is protected speech by your 1st amendment). So despite the fact that you try to play down the prospect of supporting Nazi speech, we have extremely recent evidence that this is an actual problem that you’re probably too pathetic to address.

Section 230 removes their liability, and thus their claim that the content is their speech. This simply now becomes a regulatory issue due to government benefits for the country in question.

Yes it would, but it's not the same as the case we are discussing.

It was the way he tweeted it, not as a historical tweet, or even as a position, but to directly provoke Musk.

 

[martybegan]

It's such a common statist pattern. Horn your way in with intrusive regulation, and then use it as an excuse for ever more intrusive regulation.

All because you're terrified of queers and brown people.

Please show me where I am "terrified" of gays and minorities.

You made the accusation, now back it up.