What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The First Amendment is useless.

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
42,705
Reaction score
18,712
Points
2,300
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
NOW I see the problem--you don't know what the !st Amendment is !!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHAHA
'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech'''''

..just like all of the Amendments--they can be interpreted many ways
..anyway, getting back to your original reply---it IS related
hahahhahaha--you fkd up

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I must have missed that law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fked up hahahahahahahahahaha
hhahahahhahahah
your brain is missing
..the other problem is, you people don't know the definitions of the words you posts !!!!! hahahahah

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Answer the question dmfk.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
already did --the one after your original response
and:-not only do you show your ignorance of the definitions of words and the Constitution, you also show immaturity/childishness/etc by your unnecessary insults

Congress didn’t pass a law to censor Gina Carano. Therefore not a violation of the first amendment.
firing someone that tells the truth is what the nazis/etc did......plain and simple--and you SUPPORT that!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the wording of the first amendment that you posted. It’s not a violation of the first amendment.

The GOVERNMENT is not censoring her. It’s very SIMPLE!!!!!!!!
hahhahahahaha
......the GOVERNMENT [ federal, local, state ] gets involved in ALL kinds of civil rights issues/free speech issues
---the first Amendment says NOTHING about christmas decorations/etc....
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
46,847
Reaction score
29,205
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
The goal of the Democrats is to gut the Bill of Rights.

It stands in their way of making the US a Socialist shithole.
 

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
12,993
Reaction score
4,895
Points
210
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
NOW I see the problem--you don't know what the !st Amendment is !!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHAHA
'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech'''''

..just like all of the Amendments--they can be interpreted many ways
..anyway, getting back to your original reply---it IS related
hahahhahaha--you fkd up

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I must have missed that law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fked up hahahahahahahahahaha
hhahahahhahahah
your brain is missing
..the other problem is, you people don't know the definitions of the words you posts !!!!! hahahahah

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Answer the question dmfk.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
already did --the one after your original response
and:-not only do you show your ignorance of the definitions of words and the Constitution, you also show immaturity/childishness/etc by your unnecessary insults

Congress didn’t pass a law to censor Gina Carano. Therefore not a violation of the first amendment.
firing someone that tells the truth is what the nazis/etc did......plain and simple--and you SUPPORT that!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the wording of the first amendment that you posted. It’s not a violation of the first amendment.

The GOVERNMENT is not censoring her. It’s very SIMPLE!!!!!!!!
hahhahahahaha
......the GOVERNMENT [ federal, local, state ] gets involved in ALL kinds of civil rights issues/free speech issues
---the first Amendment says NOTHING about christmas decorations/etc....

Did the GOVERNMENT have anything to do with Gina Carano getting fired?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,892
Reaction score
7,256
Points
1,830
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
NOW I see the problem--you don't know what the !st Amendment is !!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHAHA
'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech'''''

..just like all of the Amendments--they can be interpreted many ways
..anyway, getting back to your original reply---it IS related
hahahhahaha--you fkd up

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I must have missed that law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fked up hahahahahahahahahaha
hhahahahhahahah
your brain is missing
..the other problem is, you people don't know the definitions of the words you posts !!!!! hahahahah

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Answer the question dmfk.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
already did --the one after your original response
and:-not only do you show your ignorance of the definitions of words and the Constitution, you also show immaturity/childishness/etc by your unnecessary insults

Congress didn’t pass a law to censor Gina Carano. Therefore not a violation of the first amendment.
firing someone that tells the truth is what the nazis/etc did......plain and simple--and you SUPPORT that!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the wording of the first amendment that you posted. It’s not a violation of the first amendment.

The GOVERNMENT is not censoring her. It’s very SIMPLE!!!!!!!!
hahhahahahaha
......the GOVERNMENT [ federal, local, state ] gets involved in ALL kinds of civil rights issues/free speech issues
---the first Amendment says NOTHING about christmas decorations/etc....

Did the GOVERNMENT have anything to do with Gina Carano getting fired?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Apparently the Nazis did it. I didn't even know they were still around.
 

XponentialChaos

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Messages
12,993
Reaction score
4,895
Points
210

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
17,081
Reaction score
3,318
Points
280
Past generations instituted protections for expression because absolutist powers like kings and religions used to jail those who expressed anything disliked by those powers. The "founders" were concerned with this when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They were not concerned with whether or not an employer allowed expression on his premises.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,892
Reaction score
7,256
Points
1,830
Past generations instituted protections for expression because absolutist powers like kings and religions used to jail those who expressed anything disliked by those powers. The "founders" were concerned with this when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They were not concerned with whether or not an employer allowed expression on his premises.

Bake the cake!
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
42,705
Reaction score
18,712
Points
2,300
Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.

How do you figure?

Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.

You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.
The listed protected classes are ones that had such bad discrimination in the past, that they were then allowed to petition for explicit protection. In no way does that imply what is not explicit can then be discriminated against.
Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
Like there is no amendment on privacy.
That does not mean the right of privacy does not exist, and has been used many times by the court an a generic and unenumerated right.
thank you--exactly---it is a '''guidebook'' only--because you are right = they can't list everything......that goes for many states/cities/schools/company/etc policies
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,892
Reaction score
7,256
Points
1,830
Discrimination of any kind is illegal, period.
If you are open to the public, then you can not discriminate.
This is no different from a lunch counter in Alabama that does not want to serve Blacks.
The fact there are specific groups who are listed as it being illegal to discriminate against, does in no way imply that all other discrimination is legal.
It isn't.

How do you figure?

Political affiliation, for example, isn’t a protected class.

You misunderstand the law.
It is impossible to list all protections against discrimination.
Any and all discrimination is strictly illegal.
The listed protected classes are ones that had such bad discrimination in the past, that they were then allowed to petition for explicit protection. In no way does that imply what is not explicit can then be discriminated against.
Rights are infinite and can never be enumerated.
Like there is no amendment on privacy.
That does not mean the right of privacy does not exist, and has been used many times by the court an a generic and unenumerated right.
thank you--exactly---it is a '''guidebook'' only--because you are right = they can't list everything......that goes for many states/cities/schools/company/etc policies
Bake the cake!
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,555
Points
178
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.
...
Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First.

Oh how do you make it through the day knowing you'll not be able to tweet your latest download of lies and and bigger lies.

Personally, I revel in your pain.
Seriously.
I've watched you subhumans over the last 12 years scream "FIRST" every time a post got deleted or some such. I watched as your behaviors got worse and worse and these companies refused to honor their own ToS.
All that's happening here is these companies are enforcing the ToS
TO WHICH YOU AGREED!!!
I just LOOOOOOOVVVVVVE IRONY
"Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First."
Hilarious. That's exactly how a NAZI official in the German government of 1933 would have describe his position on censorship.

Their TOS are horseshit. They obviously aren't evenly enforced, asshole.
So, again, you demand the government enforce your rights to spew your crap wherever you want by denying their right not not have your filth contaminating their product.

You know what's funny? You don't even see the hypocrisy of your demand.
Your belief that your right to spew filth takes precedence over my right is hilarious.

There is no hypocrisy, NAZI. Facebook and Twitter are government protected monopolies. They have no right to censor their users.
Read the ToS dumbass.

Not only do they have the right, they have a legal obligation.
No one forces you to read or listen to anything I say or write.
No one is forced to publish what I write.
If I violate the ToS I can be rightly shut down.

No go complain to the mods so you can his this removed.
You know, because you're opposed to "censorship."
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
144,626
Reaction score
32,985
Points
2,180
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.
...
Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First.

Oh how do you make it through the day knowing you'll not be able to tweet your latest download of lies and and bigger lies.

Personally, I revel in your pain.
Seriously.
I've watched you subhumans over the last 12 years scream "FIRST" every time a post got deleted or some such. I watched as your behaviors got worse and worse and these companies refused to honor their own ToS.
All that's happening here is these companies are enforcing the ToS
TO WHICH YOU AGREED!!!
I just LOOOOOOOVVVVVVE IRONY
"Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First."
Hilarious. That's exactly how a NAZI official in the German government of 1933 would have describe his position on censorship.

Their TOS are horseshit. They obviously aren't evenly enforced, asshole.
So, again, you demand the government enforce your rights to spew your crap wherever you want by denying their right not not have your filth contaminating their product.

You know what's funny? You don't even see the hypocrisy of your demand.
Your belief that your right to spew filth takes precedence over my right is hilarious.

There is no hypocrisy, NAZI. Facebook and Twitter are government protected monopolies. They have no right to censor their users.
Read the ToS dumbass.

Not only do they have the right, they have a legal obligation.
No one forces you to read or listen to anything I say or write.
No one is forced to publish what I write.
If I violate the ToS I can be rightly shut down.

No go complain to the mods so you can his this removed.
You know, because you're opposed to "censorship."
Their terms of service violate rule 230, moron. They are changed on almost a daily basis, and they are not evenly enforced. Only morons are still swallowing the TOS propaganda.
 

Utilitarian

co-Cain Manager
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
775
Points
928
Location
NC
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.


The First Amendment was passed in 1789. It provided Freedom of Worship, Speech, Press, and Association for all free people. Sadly, American Slaves had neither Rights nor Freedom. Russian and East European serfs also had few Rights and little Freedom. Fortunately, for more then a Century, every free person was free to express unpopular views.


During XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries, the economy and tools of production were simple. Most people were self-employed in craft and agriculture. Tools of communication were simple as well. Most political groups could own a small printing press. Even if some group would have attempted to "cancel" their political opponents by coercing every business to boycott them, they would not have been successful.


By the beginning of the XXth Century, means of Production and Communication became much more sophisticated and interconnected. Many workers came to depend on their employees for their very livelihood. During the Red Scare of 1917 -- 1920, and more so during McCarthyism 1947 -- 1957, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were blacklisted for expressing Communist or Socialist views. This was the first instance of Authoritarian rule within the framework of the First Amendment.


For some time after 1957, America remained a Free Society. Very few people were fired for their political opinions, and they generally could find another job. They were fired for really offensive speech. For instance on August 6, 1965, disc jockey Bob Dayton was fired for joking on air about the 20th anniversary of bombing of Hiroshima.


During late 1980s and 1990s, Political Correctness came into force. Thousands of people were fired by universities and Liberal companies for disagreeing with Progressives. America ceased to be a Free Society, and became Authoritarian.


Authoritarianism of 1990s and 2000s was much milder then Totalitarianism of 2020s. During 2000s, I had some conversations with people who have publicly expressed Politically Incorrect views. They told me that they would never apply for a job in a Liberal company since they would not be hired. Nevertheless, they did find jobs with companies that valued Freedom.

Totalitarian Cancel Culture of 2020s is much worse then Political Correctness of the past decades. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs and careers for slightest offense against Progressives. Many of those who lose jobs are blacklisted. Even though many companies would like to hire these people, these companies are coerced by other businesses into not hiring them. Any company which falls out of line is boycotted by all other companies. Social Media censors speech which offends Progressives. When Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and Apple, almost every American company was afraid to work with Parler. The First Amendment did not prevent American Society from becoming Totalitarian. To a degree, the First Amendment Freedom of Association enables Totalitarianism.


Is there a possibility that the tide of Totalitarianism will turn back? Honestly, it is very unlikely. I am not optimistic about Conservatives organising fast enough to resist Totalitarianism. Nevertheless, anyone who values Freedom should take every practical legal step to oppose Totalitarianism. Maybe there is a chance.

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

2) Conservatives should help individuals and companies targeted by Progressive mobs.

3) In small Conservative counties, some businesses may help by firing Progressive workers. Boycotting businesses owned by Progressives or employing them may also be effective. This would be an effective pushback against Progressives. This would also encourage them to support part 1) -- greater employee protections.
I think the simplest solution would be to treat any monopoly or oligopoly as a common carrier. After doing that, the regulation involved would prevent most forms of political censorship.

If it was still a problem after that, then more rigorously apply antitrust legislation.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,892
Reaction score
7,256
Points
1,830
Socialists gonna socialize.

And the First Amendment gets in their way. Which is why they want it declared "useless".
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
1,555
Points
178
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.
...
Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First.

Oh how do you make it through the day knowing you'll not be able to tweet your latest download of lies and and bigger lies.

Personally, I revel in your pain.
Seriously.
I've watched you subhumans over the last 12 years scream "FIRST" every time a post got deleted or some such. I watched as your behaviors got worse and worse and these companies refused to honor their own ToS.
All that's happening here is these companies are enforcing the ToS
TO WHICH YOU AGREED!!!
I just LOOOOOOOVVVVVVE IRONY
"Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First."
Hilarious. That's exactly how a NAZI official in the German government of 1933 would have describe his position on censorship.

Their TOS are horseshit. They obviously aren't evenly enforced, asshole.
So, again, you demand the government enforce your rights to spew your crap wherever you want by denying their right not not have your filth contaminating their product.

You know what's funny? You don't even see the hypocrisy of your demand.
Your belief that your right to spew filth takes precedence over my right is hilarious.

There is no hypocrisy, NAZI. Facebook and Twitter are government protected monopolies. They have no right to censor their users.
Read the ToS dumbass.

Not only do they have the right, they have a legal obligation.
No one forces you to read or listen to anything I say or write.
No one is forced to publish what I write.
If I violate the ToS I can be rightly shut down.

No go complain to the mods so you can his this removed.
You know, because you're opposed to "censorship."
Their terms of service violate rule 230, moron. They are changed on almost a daily basis, and they are not evenly enforced. Only morons are still swallowing the TOS propaganda.
Only morons think they they have a legal leg to stand on outside the ToS.

But, sonny, lawyer up and go to town.
Because in the end
Your lawyer makes money
Their lawyer makes money
All the experts make money
And
All of it paid by you.

Anything you got left you can feel free to complete the stupid by donating it to Candace what's her ass.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
144,626
Reaction score
32,985
Points
2,180
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.
...
Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First.

Oh how do you make it through the day knowing you'll not be able to tweet your latest download of lies and and bigger lies.

Personally, I revel in your pain.
Seriously.
I've watched you subhumans over the last 12 years scream "FIRST" every time a post got deleted or some such. I watched as your behaviors got worse and worse and these companies refused to honor their own ToS.
All that's happening here is these companies are enforcing the ToS
TO WHICH YOU AGREED!!!
I just LOOOOOOOVVVVVVE IRONY
"Oh pity the poor "conservative." Unable to use the power of government to force their slime onto venues that do not want it because of that pesky First."
Hilarious. That's exactly how a NAZI official in the German government of 1933 would have describe his position on censorship.

Their TOS are horseshit. They obviously aren't evenly enforced, asshole.
So, again, you demand the government enforce your rights to spew your crap wherever you want by denying their right not not have your filth contaminating their product.

You know what's funny? You don't even see the hypocrisy of your demand.
Your belief that your right to spew filth takes precedence over my right is hilarious.

There is no hypocrisy, NAZI. Facebook and Twitter are government protected monopolies. They have no right to censor their users.
Read the ToS dumbass.

Not only do they have the right, they have a legal obligation.
No one forces you to read or listen to anything I say or write.
No one is forced to publish what I write.
If I violate the ToS I can be rightly shut down.

No go complain to the mods so you can his this removed.
You know, because you're opposed to "censorship."
Their terms of service violate rule 230, moron. They are changed on almost a daily basis, and they are not evenly enforced. Only morons are still swallowing the TOS propaganda.
Only morons think they they have a legal leg to stand on outside the ToS.

But, sonny, lawyer up and go to town.
Because in the end
Your lawyer makes money
Their lawyer makes money
All the experts make money
And
All of it paid by you.

Anything you got left you can feel free to complete the stupid by donating it to Candace what's her ass.
The TOS are subject to whatever regulations are in force, and they don't allow companies exempt under rule 230 to censor their members for perfectly legal statements.
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
7,034
Reaction score
1,765
Points
245
Most Conservatives and Classical Liberals are strong proponents of Free Speech. Most Progressives are proponents of Totalitarian Censorship of any idea they find offensive. They also support Draconian Punishment of anyone who expresses or hints at disagreeing with their views. Strangely, almost everyone supports the First Amendment. I do not.


The First Amendment was passed in 1789. It provided Freedom of Worship, Speech, Press, and Association for all free people. Sadly, American Slaves had neither Rights nor Freedom. Russian and East European serfs also had few Rights and little Freedom. Fortunately, for more then a Century, every free person was free to express unpopular views.


During XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries, the economy and tools of production were simple. Most people were self-employed in craft and agriculture. Tools of communication were simple as well. Most political groups could own a small printing press. Even if some group would have attempted to "cancel" their political opponents by coercing every business to boycott them, they would not have been successful.


By the beginning of the XXth Century, means of Production and Communication became much more sophisticated and interconnected. Many workers came to depend on their employees for their very livelihood. During the Red Scare of 1917 -- 1920, and more so during McCarthyism 1947 -- 1957, hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were blacklisted for expressing Communist or Socialist views. This was the first instance of Authoritarian rule within the framework of the First Amendment.


For some time after 1957, America remained a Free Society. Very few people were fired for their political opinions, and they generally could find another job. They were fired for really offensive speech. For instance on August 6, 1965, disc jockey Bob Dayton was fired for joking on air about the 20th anniversary of bombing of Hiroshima.


During late 1980s and 1990s, Political Correctness came into force. Thousands of people were fired by universities and Liberal companies for disagreeing with Progressives. America ceased to be a Free Society, and became Authoritarian.


Authoritarianism of 1990s and 2000s was much milder then Totalitarianism of 2020s. During 2000s, I had some conversations with people who have publicly expressed Politically Incorrect views. They told me that they would never apply for a job in a Liberal company since they would not be hired. Nevertheless, they did find jobs with companies that valued Freedom.

Totalitarian Cancel Culture of 2020s is much worse then Political Correctness of the past decades. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs and careers for slightest offense against Progressives. Many of those who lose jobs are blacklisted. Even though many companies would like to hire these people, these companies are coerced by other businesses into not hiring them. Any company which falls out of line is boycotted by all other companies. Social Media censors speech which offends Progressives. When Parler was deplatformed by Amazon and Apple, almost every American company was afraid to work with Parler. The First Amendment did not prevent American Society from becoming Totalitarian. To a degree, the First Amendment Freedom of Association enables Totalitarianism.


Is there a possibility that the tide of Totalitarianism will turn back? Honestly, it is very unlikely. I am not optimistic about Conservatives organising fast enough to resist Totalitarianism. Nevertheless, anyone who values Freedom should take every practical legal step to oppose Totalitarianism. Maybe there is a chance.

1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

2) Conservatives should help individuals and companies targeted by Progressive mobs.

3) In small Conservative counties, some businesses may help by firing Progressive workers. Boycotting businesses owned by Progressives or employing them may also be effective. This would be an effective pushback against Progressives. This would also encourage them to support part 1) -- greater employee protections.

If we have such a horrible, totalitarian repression of free speech, then why are you allowed to post this OP?

Are the FBI knocking on your door?

No?

Then STFU!!!
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,892
Reaction score
7,256
Points
1,830
If we have such a horrible, totalitarian repression of free speech, then why are you allowed to post this OP?

Are the FBI knocking on your door?

No?

Then STFU!!!

Free speech isn't what they're after.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,612
Reaction score
4,682
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
1) We should support any legislation opposing Totalitarianism. If there is a proposed state law making Political Affiliation a protected class, we must support it! California, Colorado, New York, and North Dakota have some protection for employees from being fired for some off-duty speech. We should also support any law which would penalize Social Media companies for violating political neutrality. Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.

The first amendment references the right to free speech without restrictions from the government. It says nothing about private individuals.

It blows my mind that the so-called "conservatives" who say they are for property rights and free speech believe the government should force private individuals to carry the speech of others on the private property of others. There's nothing more totalitarian than that.

The irony - and the stupidity - of this argument is off the charts.

But if your goal above all else is to "own the libs" in the culture war, consistency of thought doesn't matter.
Twitter and Facebook are government protected monopolies. With government privileges comes government regulation.

The Government is suing them for antitrust violations. Which still will not change their free speech rights.

A media open to the public, has no free speech rights.
They have to remain neutral to all other views since they not only claim to be just a venue, but agreed not to discriminate when they applied for FCC licensing.

A web site the public is free to join and free to quit at any time. When you join you agree to their terms.

They haven't been licensed yet.

Wrong.
A web site is a Service Provider, and it HAS been licensed.
I am an network analyst and implement internet and other network protocols, and I can assure you that all internet provided ARE licensed, with signed contracts.
If you have a personal website that is not licensed, than you are actually just a user who is running under the license of the site provider.
It is like you are a renter in an apartment building, so then you did not have to apply for the building permit, follow the rules on plumbing and wiring, etc.
But the owner and builder did.
Same with the internet.
The fact you are too low level of a user to know about internet licensing and FCC regulations, does not mean they are not there.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,612
Reaction score
4,682
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
.....Gina Carano is a perfect example--and she was telling the truth --NOT hate/etc

Not related to the first amendment.
hahahhaha
1. related to the OP--perfectly related
2. you can't refute it
3. yes, it is RELATED to the 1st Amendment = free speech--you fkd up!!
4. you support people getting punished for telling the truth/free speech = YOU are like the nazis

The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring you, moron.

It doesn’t say that there will be no consequences for your speech.

You seriously didn’t know that?

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
NOW I see the problem--you don't know what the !st Amendment is !!!!
HAHAHAHHAAHAHA
'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech'''''

..just like all of the Amendments--they can be interpreted many ways
..anyway, getting back to your original reply---it IS related
hahahhahaha--you fkd up

Did Congress make a law to restrict the speech of Gina Carano?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I must have missed that law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You fked up hahahahahahahahahaha

The Bill of Rights is not originally intended to protect individual rights.
It was intended just to ban federal restrictions of some pre-existing rights, so that states or municipalities would have full jurisdiction over restrictions.

But the 14th amendment started the incorporation process, with the logic that if something is so important the federal government should not infringe, then maybe the states and local should not either?

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.
Not a boss, customer, store, service provider, or anyone at all.
Disney went way over the line and should be prosecuted, in my opinion.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top