The First Amendment is useless.

[XponentialChaos]

Can you be more specific as to what you want a link for?

Certainly.

 

[dblack]

Can you be more specific as to what you want a link for?

Certainly.

View attachment 481812

That would be because he's full of shit. Many dumbass liberals think all discrimination is illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

And you are wrong about who is the greatest threat.

Get back to me when Twitter has the power to throw me in jail if I piss them off.

Quit pretending your some kind libertarian, NAZI. We all know the truth.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Firing Employees for Off-Duty Conduct and Speech - DuBoff Law Group

You’ve probably seen the viral video of the white woman calling the police on a black man birding in Central Park who asked her to leash her dog (in accordance with park rules). The woman’s employer quickly fired her, issuing a public statement that it had done so after an internal review of the...

www.dubofflaw.com

A few states, including California and New York, have laws prohibiting private employers from firing employees for legal, off-duty speech or conduct that doesn’t conflict with the employer’s business-related interests.

Conservatives must work to strengthen these protections.

Really?

They will have a really tough time, there are only like 1,000 conservatives in the US.

 

[Richard-H]

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!!!

The reason why this is important is that it is NOT the government that is the biggest danger currently.
It is employers who are now starting to illegally harm our right to free speech, through economic extortion.
That is just as bad as sending goons to bust in your door.

I've worked for 2 very large corporations. We routinely get 'training' on workplace behavior.

There are very little limits on what you can say in the workplace:

You're not allowed to harass your fellow employees or create a hostile work environment for them.

You can not try to start romantic or sexual relations with anyone that is subordinate to you.

You can not insult anyone's race, religion or ethnicity.

You CAN say anything you want regarding politics.

In other words, you have absolute freedom of speech except that you can not act like a complete idiot and asshole or bully your fellow employees.

The notion that Political correctness is being used to limit people's free speech regarding politics is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!

 

[Richard-H]

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.

Not in most states. And it shouldn't be in any. If I don't like your politics, I won't post them on my webpage. Period.

Political discrimination is illegal in all states.
It has been incorporated under 14th amendment principles.
Whether or not you can censor politics on your webpage depends on if you are open to the public or not, and how much harm you would be causing others.
For example, if your webpage only contains your thoughts, then you are not obligated to be fair to anyone else.
But if you are letting others post, then you can't discriminate and illegal discriminate.

So you're saying that the RNC & DNC web sites can't discriminate?

Seriously?

Like the Press, websites can legally discriminate as much as they like.

You're free to open your own web site if you'd like, but no one has an obligation to allow anyone to access your website thru their services.

Please try to have some respect for the private sector's rights to manage their own property!

 

[dblack]

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.

Not in most states. And it shouldn't be in any. If I don't like your politics, I won't post them on my webpage. Period.

Political discrimination is illegal in all states.
It has been incorporated under 14th amendment principles.
Whether or not you can censor politics on your webpage depends on if you are open to the public or not, and how much harm you would be causing others.
For example, if your webpage only contains your thoughts, then you are not obligated to be fair to anyone else.
But if you are letting others post, then you can't discriminate and illegal discriminate.

So you're saying that the RNC & DNC web sites can't discriminate?

Seriously?

Like the Press, websites can legally discriminate as much as they like.

You're free to open your own web site if you'd like, but no one has an obligation to allow anyone to access your website thru their services.

Please try to have some respect for the private sector's rights to manage their own property!

Political affiliation isn't a protected class in most states.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

Golly gee whiz here we are in the presence of a LEGAL GOD!!!!!

So, oh master of all things legal, tell us...

Where's the lawsuits?
None filed, none decided.

Not a single court decision in any court anywhere in the country has decided in your favor.

I'm thinking instead of LEGAL GOD, what we have here is legally a moron.

Wrong.
The fact the Internet has so far usually been a free-for-all, is due to the lack of regulatory infrastructure.
The fact the government is not following through on it legal responsibilities to protect rights on the internet, does not mean it is legal to discriminate based on political beliefs.

Is there anything about which "conservatives" know less and assume more?

This site is not owned or regulated beyond criminal law by the government.
HELL Sonny, you don't even know where this site is!
I can sue you for what you say about me
but
I cannot sue the website for what you say about me.

The website has no obligations to moderate your statements but by failing to do so it could lose customers.

Now, show me one case where a "Twitter" type entity was successfully sued for infiringing on someone's first amendment right.
Just one
Or
Just shut the fuck up.

 

[dblack]

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.

Golly gee whiz here we are in the presence of a LEGAL GOD!!!!!

So, oh master of all things legal, tell us...

Where's the lawsuits?
None filed, none decided.

Not a single court decision in any court anywhere in the country has decided in your favor.

I'm thinking instead of LEGAL GOD, what we have here is legally a moron.

Wrong.
The fact the Internet has so far usually been a free-for-all, is due to the lack of regulatory infrastructure.
The fact the government is not following through on it legal responsibilities to protect rights on the internet, does not mean it is legal to discriminate based on political beliefs.

There's no such thing as a right to not be discriminated against. The basic concept is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a right to be respected or a right to get laid.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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

the left fears the truth

 

[Dadoalex]

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

the left fears the truth

Fears?
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans based their policies and their arguments on facts.

That went away 20 years ago.

FEARS?
Seems it wasn't the "left" that through out their #3 in the House for telling the truth.

FEARS?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Lastamender]

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

the left fears the truth

Fears?
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans based their policies and their arguments on facts.

That went away 20 years ago.

FEARS?
Seems it wasn't the "left" that through out their #3 in the House for telling the truth.

FEARS?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Then your not old enough to remember when Democrats did the same.

 

[Dadoalex]

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

the left fears the truth

Fears?
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans based their policies and their arguments on facts.

That went away 20 years ago.

FEARS?
Seems it wasn't the "left" that through out their #3 in the House for telling the truth.

FEARS?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Then your not old enough to remember when Democrats did the same.

I'm alive today so....

Remember when Republicans accused Democrats of being emotion, reacting emotionally rather than to the facts?

I remember.

you guys threw out one of your leaders for telling the truth.
Not some weird Trump version...
Not some weird Q-Man version
Just the actual factual truth.

When, as an organization, the truth become an anathema to the organization's existence
It is time for the organization to no longer exist.

 

[Lastamender]

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

the left fears the truth

Fears?
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans based their policies and their arguments on facts.

That went away 20 years ago.

FEARS?
Seems it wasn't the "left" that through out their #3 in the House for telling the truth.

FEARS?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Then your not old enough to remember when Democrats did the same.

I'm alive today so....

Remember when Republicans accused Democrats of being emotion, reacting emotionally rather than to the facts?

I remember.

you guys threw out one of your leaders for telling the truth.
Not some weird Trump version...
Not some weird Q-Man version
Just the actual factual truth.

When, as an organization, the truth become an anathema to the organization's existence
It is time for the organization to no longer exist.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyway, political speech now IS an individual right that can not legally be infringed upon by anyone.

Not in most states. And it shouldn't be in any. If I don't like your politics, I won't post them on my webpage. Period.

Political discrimination is illegal in all states.
It has been incorporated under 14th amendment principles.
Whether or not you can censor politics on your webpage depends on if you are open to the public or not, and how much harm you would be causing others.
For example, if your webpage only contains your thoughts, then you are not obligated to be fair to anyone else.
But if you are letting others post, then you can't discriminate and illegal discriminate.

So you're saying that the RNC & DNC web sites can't discriminate?

Seriously?

Like the Press, websites can legally discriminate as much as they like.

You're free to open your own web site if you'd like, but no one has an obligation to allow anyone to access your website thru their services.

Please try to have some respect for the private sector's rights to manage their own property!

Websites can discriminate. They can also be sued. On the other hand, social media sites claim to be common carriers protected from lawsuits. That means they can't discriminate.

 

[miketx]

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.

We had it explained to us very clearly at the prison the things we were not allowed to say and were told that we should never ever speak to the media about the unit or you would be fired. You can either agree to it or quit. When I quit I talked about the crap that goes on there publicly.

 

[Rigby5]

Certainly.

View attachment 481812

Links do not make things real or not.
The basis of understanding law is not going to be found in links, partially because it is an abstraction not universally agreed upon, but also because lawyers, legislators, politicians, etc., work hard at pretending that laws instead is whatever arbitrary edict they want to impose.

Go back to the Founders.
They explain it fairly well.
They were faced with legislation from the current government in England, they felt was inherently unfair, like "taxation without representation".
They concluded then that what is legal actually depends on ethics, basic legal principles, like the defense of inherent rights of individuals, etc., and NOT on arbitrary legislation or government edicts.

So when you look at what discrimination, it is the deliberate harming of the inherent rights of someone else, (their rights being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)
That then by definition is obviously inherently illegal.
The only exception would be if the discrimination was somehow necessary in order to enhance or protect the rights of an even larger group, like a strike, protest, etc.

 

[Lastamender]

Links do not make things real or not.
The basis of understanding law is not going to be found in links, partially because it is an abstraction not universally agreed upon, but also because lawyers, legislators, politicians, etc., work hard at pretending that laws instead is whatever arbitrary edict they want to impose.

Go back to the Founders.
They explain it fairly well.
They were faced with legislation from the current government in England, they felt was inherently unfair, like "taxation without representation".
They concluded then that what is legal actually depends on ethics, basic legal principles, like the defense of inherent rights of individuals, etc., and NOT on arbitrary legislation or government edicts.

So when you look at what discrimination, it is the deliberate harming of the inherent rights of someone else, (their rights being life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)
That then by definition is obviously inherently illegal.
The only exception would be if the discrimination was somehow necessary in order to enhance or protect the rights of an even larger group, like a strike, protest, etc.

A little long for him. I hope he gets through it today. Good post.

 

[Rigby5]

There's no such thing as a right to not be discriminated against. The basic concept is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a right to be respected or a right to get laid.

Wrong.
The right to not be discriminated against does not require anything from anyone else, except the same treatment they give everyone else.
You do not respect everyone or have sex with everyone, so that obviously is a wrong analogy.
Not discriminating does not cost you anything.
And in fact, discriminating harms yourself as well.
So it is beneficial to not discriminate.

 

[dblack]

Wrong.
The right to not be discriminated against does not require anything from anyone else, except the same treatment they give everyone else.

Yeah. Except that. This is "something", and for many violates basic personal convictions. No one should be forced to serve others against their will. There is no "right to not be discriminated against". It's an incoherent concept.