The First Amendment is useless.

[dblack]

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 Even if such law is repealed by a high court, every hassle for Totalitarian Social Media is a plus.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 statist mantra.

 

[bripat9643]

.....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

This is worse that simply a misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

I agree. But good luck explaining that to them.

I can’t even get them to understand what the thing says.

“How come I can call my boss the n-word and still get fired? I thought we had the freedom of speech!?”

The "twitter and Facebook are private companies so they can censor" meme has been debunked 10000 times.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Spoken like a dedicated statist.

Spare me, NAZI.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

So Verizon can cut your phone service if they don't like your politics? Really?

 

[Rigby5]

.....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

Wrong.
The Bill of Rights originally only restrained the federal government, but through the slow process of "incorporation", it was adopted that if something is so important that the federal government is to be barred from infringing, then so should all levels of government or anyone else.

So freedom of political speech is NOT just a restriction on government.
It also applies on companies, media, stores, bosses, etc.
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.

And that should be obvious.
If the wealthy elite were to be allowed to discriminate against the majority workers, then they could prevent any media from spreading any of their views, they could remove their jobs, housing, and ability to get food, etc.
That would not only be the end of the democratic republic, but would start universal economic slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

.....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

This is worse that simply a misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

I agree. But good luck explaining that to them.

I can’t even get them to understand what the thing says.

“How come I can call my boss the n-word and still get fired? I thought we had the freedom of speech!?”

The n-word is not protected speech because it is not political but hate speech intended to cause harm and even deliberately incite violence.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

We seem to agree on this one also.

 

[bripat9643]

.....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

This is worse that simply a misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

I agree. But good luck explaining that to them.

I can’t even get them to understand what the thing says.

“How come I can call my boss the n-word and still get fired? I thought we had the freedom of speech!?”

The n-word is not protected speech because it is not political but hate speech intended to cause harm and even deliberately incite violence.

You spout all the usual leftwing horseshit. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to prosecute so-called "hate speech." "Hate speech" is whatever leftwingers decide it is.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We seem to agree on this one also.

You mean "disagree," don't you, NAZI?

 

[BlindBoo]

Freedom of speech does not override the freedom of the press.

That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom of speech does not override the freedom of the press.

That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.

Facebook isn't the press, moron.

 

[TheParser]

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.

The OP is right.

The United States is headed for a totalitarian future.

Because of changing demographics, there is no hope for this nation.

 

[BlindBoo]

So, government should decide who can and can't be fired, and why? What else would you like to put the state in charge of?

I would like the government to continue the War on Drugs. The main positive value is that considerably more Progressives then Conservatives use drugs and thus suffer the penalty.

There is no legal basis at all for the War on Drugs, and it does is make government criminal.

It's an unethical and fascist war against our own citizens. It's a honeypot for increasing state power and control.

 

[dblack]

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.

Spoken like a dedicated statist.

Spare me, NAZI.

You're parroting the statist mantra. You and I both know it. You've sold out.

 

[BlindBoo]

Freedom of speech does not override the freedom of the press.

That is the press is not obligated to print the governments point of view or yours.

Facebook isn't the press, moron.

Freedom of speech is still on the side of Fakebook.

 

[dblack]

"The First Amendment is useless" ... because I can't use it to force Facebook to host Trumpster propaganda.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

.....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

This is worse that simply a misunderstanding. The inside out interpretation of the 1st, actually undermines real freedom of speech. Especially when they're calling for "regulation" to achieve their ends.

I agree. But good luck explaining that to them.

I can’t even get them to understand what the thing says.

“How come I can call my boss the n-word and still get fired? I thought we had the freedom of speech!?”

The n-word is not protected speech because it is not political but hate speech intended to cause harm and even deliberately incite violence.

You spout all the usual leftwing horseshit. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to prosecute so-called "hate speech." "Hate speech" is whatever leftwingers decide it is.

As an extreme leftist, I agree speech about what you hate is protected.
What I think the legislators had in mind is speech that would deliberately incite violence in others, through untrue propaganda and hysteria.
You have to admit that the n-word is not about what you hate, but intended instead to deliberately incite or cause harm.
Similar to the reason "fighting words" can be illegal.
Deliberately insulting one's race, religion, mother, or anything else that is intended to cause harm and violence, can be legally censored I think.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.