- Jul 5, 2012
- 19,904
- 4,860
- 280
No rights without responsibilities.
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.
so no fire alarms were going off and people panicked?Having been in the situation, what transpired was, indeed, panic.seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.
You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.
Correct.so no fire alarms were going off and people panicked?Having been in the situation, what transpired was, indeed, panic.seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.
You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.
Correct.so no fire alarms were going off and people panicked?Having been in the situation, what transpired was, indeed, panic.seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.
You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.
but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
That's right, human.Correct.so no fire alarms were going off and people panicked?Having been in the situation, what transpired was, indeed, panic.seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.
You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.
Wow that's gullible.
so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
That's right, human.Correct.so no fire alarms were going off and people panicked?Having been in the situation, what transpired was, indeed, panic.seriously what do you think would happen if a person stood up and yelled fire in a movie theater?Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.
You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.
People would throw popcorn at him and tell him to STFU.
Wow that's gullible.
never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,,,never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
you are not guaranteed equal footing you are only guaranteed that the government cannot pass a law that interferes with your right to free speech.
There is no guarantee of venue or audience.
where in that agreement does it guarantee you a venue or an audience?not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,,,never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
you are not guaranteed equal footing you are only guaranteed that the government cannot pass a law that interferes with your right to free speech.
There is no guarantee of venue or audience.
DUDE!! really??where in that agreement does it guarantee you a venue or an audience?not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,,,never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
you are not guaranteed equal footing you are only guaranteed that the government cannot pass a law that interferes with your right to free speech.
There is no guarantee of venue or audience.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
I said you weren't guaranteed a venue or and audience and you repliedDUDE!! really??where in that agreement does it guarantee you a venue or an audience?not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,,,never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
you are not guaranteed equal footing you are only guaranteed that the government cannot pass a law that interferes with your right to free speech.
There is no guarantee of venue or audience.
where did I say its to guarantee me an audience??
it requires them to apply their rules equally across the board,,,
There are more website hosting companies than those few.If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
Until the Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/Apple/Google mob decides they don't like the opinions that you're allowing to be expressed on your site, and conspire to shut you down, as they just did to Parler.
I'm reminded of a major reason, a major justification for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
If you're black, and a restaurant doesn't want to serve you, or a motel doesn't want to accommodate you, because of your race, you can always find another, right?
Well, it was happening that black people could not travel as freely as whites, because if they were away from home, there were places where no restaurant would serve them, and no motel would accommodate them. They were literally denied the ability to obtain food or shelter, if they were on a journey away from home.
So, now as service industries once conspired against black people, now tech industries are conspiring against conservatives.
At this point, your excuses for social media platforms and ISPs to not want conservatives to be allowed to express their opinions thereon is no more legitimate than if you were making excuses for restaurants, motels, and other businesses not to want black people on their property, making use of their services.
I just did,, why do you keep ignoring that part of my comment,,I said you weren't guaranteed a venue or and audience and you repliedDUDE!! really??where in that agreement does it guarantee you a venue or an audience?not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,,,never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
you are not guaranteed equal footing you are only guaranteed that the government cannot pass a law that interferes with your right to free speech.
There is no guarantee of venue or audience.
where did I say its to guarantee me an audience??
it requires them to apply their rules equally across the board,,,
not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,
Tell me what else could I infer?
There are more website hosting companies than those few.If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
Until the Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/Apple/Google mob decides they don't like the opinions that you're allowing to be expressed on your site, and conspire to shut you down, as they just did to Parler.
I'm reminded of a major reason, a major justification for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
If you're black, and a restaurant doesn't want to serve you, or a motel doesn't want to accommodate you, because of your race, you can always find another, right?
Well, it was happening that black people could not travel as freely as whites, because if they were away from home, there were places where no restaurant would serve them, and no motel would accommodate them. They were literally denied the ability to obtain food or shelter, if they were on a journey away from home.
So, now as service industries once conspired against black people, now tech industries are conspiring against conservatives.
At this point, your excuses for social media platforms and ISPs to not want conservatives to be allowed to express their opinions thereon is no more legitimate than if you were making excuses for restaurants, motels, and other businesses not to want black people on their property, making use of their services.
I just did,, why do you keep ignoring that part of my comment,,I said you weren't guaranteed a venue or and audience and you repliedDUDE!! really??where in that agreement does it guarantee you a venue or an audience?not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,,,never said I was,, but I am guaranteed equal footing and that isnt happening,,so I can directly respond to a person on twitter here on USMB and they will see it???but what if you are responding to something on twitter?? they are taking away your freedom to speak against another comment directly,, just like I'm doing to you right now,,no it can't because you are still free to say what you want.the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
Robert Jackson
Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.www.mtsu.edu
***********************************************************************
This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.
Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].
But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.
Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.
Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.
Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.
We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.
If you can't post something on Twitter or other social media sites you are free to set up your own web page and post whatever you want
you cant challenge or give opposing views,,,
no they are not.
you have no guaranteed right to use Twitter.
and you can quote that Twitter post just like people do here all the time and respond away to your little heart's desire.
how does that work??
You are not guaranteed an audience for your free speech
you are not guaranteed equal footing you are only guaranteed that the government cannot pass a law that interferes with your right to free speech.
There is no guarantee of venue or audience.
where did I say its to guarantee me an audience??
it requires them to apply their rules equally across the board,,,
not according to the FCC agreement twitter signed to get their license to operate,
Tell me what else could I infer?