The individuals in the American left wing media need to be charged with high treason and treated accordingly. Start with Tapper

[Marener]

You have proof they "took it down" before the injunction came out?

It’s been widely reported. It’s also not that relevant. The mere fact that they threatened is sufficient.

Yes it is censorship. It's not usually government censorship, but it's censorship, and in the cases we are discussing, government influenced.

Free speech does not grant you the ability to use other people’s property to do so. No one things that would constitute censorship in any meaningful sense of the word.

And these are not just websites, these are social media sites where the owners claim the content isn't theirs.

Actually that's what they probably threatened when they "Asked" them to remove some posts. Didn't think that one through, did ya?

Four problems:
1. You have no evidence that was ever actually threatened
2. The administration can’t change the law, it would take an act of Congress
3. If they did change the law, it would affect everyone equally
4. Republicans have been threatening the same thing

 

[martybegan]

It’s been widely reported. It’s also not that relevant. The mere fact that they threatened is sufficient.

Free speech does not grant you the ability to use other people’s property to do so. No one things that would constitute censorship in any meaningful sense of the word.

Four problems:
1. You have no evidence that was ever actually threatened
2. The administration can’t change the law, it would take an act of Congress
3. If they did change the law, it would affect everyone equally
4. Republicans have been threatening the same thing

And they were right back up after the injunction.

Social media sites claim the posts aren't their property.

Since when has actual law been a concern of Dems?

 

[Marener]

And they were right back up after the injunction.

Social media sites claim the posts aren't their property.

Since when has actual law been a concern of Dems?

It’s still censorship. Actual censorship.

You couldn’t even be honest about the content of the ad but you’ll defend it anyway. It’s a stretch to call the ad a lie and it’s a huge stretch to say the ad represents a threat to health.

 

[martybegan]

It’s still censorship. Actual censorship.

You couldn’t even be honest about the content of the ad but you’ll defend it anyway. It’s a stretch to call the ad a lie and it’s a huge stretch to say the ad represents a threat to health.

That remains to be seen via the judge's ruling.

And I notice you are dodging responding to my points on social media, why is that cuck?

 

[Marener]

That remains to be seen via the judge's ruling.

And I notice you are dodging responding to my points on social media, why is that cuck?

Well, we definitely know you lied about the content of the ad. We don’t need a judge for that, you just want to ignore reality.

I didn’t dodge your “point”. I literally provided a four point rebuttal you ignored.

 

[MisterBeale]

So.........you object to the government trying to prevent potentially deadly misinformation about a pandemic from being allowed on social media but have no problem with trump saying he will seek to revoke the broadcast license of cable stations reporting information critical of him. Got it.

I object to both fool. Haven't you read the thread?




That is the logically consistent American position.

The individuals in the American left wing media need to be charged with high treason and treated accordingly. Start with Tapper

Cannot do New York Times. Paywall. There are always people who are going to die because they don't seek medical attention or seek it too late. Any disease anytime. Whether it's due to misinformation or just the way they were brought up or their life situation I don't believe censorship is the...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[MisterBeale]

The right supports the Constitution far far more than the left does. Any attempt at equivalence is just the usual desire of some to see both sides.

Moderation is not always the right path.

Now they do. But they haven't always.

I was just watching the Tucker interview of RFKjr's campaign manager, and they both noted this.

Tucker regularly says he regrets his propagandizing around the Iraq war, but now, he also makes clear, that as a conservative, he had been skeptical of the efforts of the ACLU in the past. He no longer does.

(It is also one of the best inside scoops of Kamala I have yet seen. Amaryllis Fox Kennedy is a lawyer in S.F. She knows more about Kamala than any of the MSM is bothering to research or tell anyone.)

Former CIA Officer Amaryllis Fox Kennedy: Iraq, JFK, & Everything Else Our Intel Agencies Lie About​

Oct 25, 2024

 

[MisterBeale]

Moron. It’s not censorship if social media platforms take down your shitpost.

If they do it to avoid government pressure on them? Of course it is.

Did you not see the ACLU link I posted?


Americans never used to tolerate that kind of authoritarian behavior, never.

 

[Marener]

If they do it to avoid government pressure on them? Of course it is.

What do you mean by “government pressure”?

 

[martybegan]

Well, we definitely know you lied about the content of the ad. We don’t need a judge for that, you just want to ignore reality.

I didn’t dodge your “point”. I literally provided a four point rebuttal you ignored.

I didn't lie at all.

LOL "rebuttal"

 

[martybegan]

Now they do. But they haven't always.

I was just watching the Tucker interview of RFKjr's campaign manager, and they both noted this.

Tucker regularly says he regrets his propagandizing around the Iraq war, but now, he also makes clear, that as a conservative, he had been skeptical of the efforts of the ACLU in the past. He no longer does.

(It is also one of the best inside scoops of Kamala I have yet seen. Amaryllis Fox Kennedy is a lawyer in S.F. She knows more about Kamala than any of the MSM is bothering to research or tell anyone.)

Former CIA Officer Amaryllis Fox Kennedy: Iraq, JFK, & Everything Else Our Intel Agencies Lie About​

Oct 25, 2024

The old ACLU or the current "progressive freedoms only" one?

 

[Marener]

I didn't lie at all.

LOL "rebuttal"

You said the ad was about emergency situations. It’s not.

Care to explain? Going to walk it back? Or just admit you lied?

 

[MisterBeale]

The old ACLU or the current "progressive freedoms only" one?

No, it is the same.

Congress keeps trying to push/pass a "domestic terror," legislation that most of them opposed after 9/11.

I can't count how many times bills have been introduced on that and have died in committee over the past twenty years or so.

I believe, they were even trying to get such unAmerican garbage introduced and pass after the OKC bombing.

The ACLU has consistently come out against it.



Such legislation would strip your constitutional rights if un-elected deep state bureaucrats classify you as a terrorist.

July 9, 2021

Biden’s Domestic Terrorism Strategy Entrenches Bias and Harmful Law Enforcement Power | ACLU

Biden’s strategy fails to address the wrongs, let alone reverse them.

www.aclu.org

August 7, 2023

ACLU Deeply Concerned by Oregon’s Passage of Unnecessary and Overbroad Law Criminalizing Domestic Terrorism | American Civil Liberties Union

Group Says HB 2772 is Latest Example of Law Enforcement Seeking to Suppress Public Protest Via Domestic Terrorism Authorities

www.aclu.org

April 2, 2021

New Domestic Terrorism Laws Won’t End White Supremacy | ACLU

On At Liberty, Hina Shamsi breaks down how domestic terrorism laws will harm communities of color.

www.aclu.org

March 15, 2024

ACLU Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision Related to Whether Public Officials Can Block Social Media Followers | American Civil Liberties Union

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday clarified when public officials’ social media posts are subject to the First Amendment in response to two...

www.aclu.org

Tucker and Kennedy are correct, and you are just letting your blind partisan hatred infect your thinking.

 

[martybegan]

You said the ad was about emergency situations. It’s not.

Care to explain? Going to walk it back? Or just admit you lied?

It was about the law, it was about restrictions, including emergencies, it was lying.

 

[martybegan]

No, it is the same.

Congress keeps trying to push/pass a "domestic terror," legislation that most of them opposed after 9/11.

I can't count how many times bills have been introduced on that and have died in committee over the past twenty years or so.

I believe, they were even trying to get such unAmerican garbage introduced and pass after the OKC bombing.

The ACLU has consistently come out against it.



Such legislation would strip your constitutional rights if un-elected deep state bureaucrats classify you as a terrorist.
View attachment 1033796
July 9, 2021

Biden’s Domestic Terrorism Strategy Entrenches Bias and Harmful Law Enforcement Power | ACLU

Biden’s strategy fails to address the wrongs, let alone reverse them.

www.aclu.org

View attachment 1033797
August 7, 2023

ACLU Deeply Concerned by Oregon’s Passage of Unnecessary and Overbroad Law Criminalizing Domestic Terrorism | American Civil Liberties Union

Group Says HB 2772 is Latest Example of Law Enforcement Seeking to Suppress Public Protest Via Domestic Terrorism Authorities

www.aclu.org

View attachment 1033800
April 2, 2021

New Domestic Terrorism Laws Won’t End White Supremacy | ACLU

On At Liberty, Hina Shamsi breaks down how domestic terrorism laws will harm communities of color.

www.aclu.org

View attachment 1033801
March 15, 2024

ACLU Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision Related to Whether Public Officials Can Block Social Media Followers | American Civil Liberties Union

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday clarified when public officials’ social media posts are subject to the First Amendment in response to two...

www.aclu.org

Tucker and Kennedy are correct, and you are just letting your blind partisan hatred infect your thinking.

And yet it backs LGBT people against people of faith any time it can.

 

[Marener]

It was about the law, it was about restrictions, including emergencies, it was lying.

The person in the ad was not describing an emergency situation.

So how did it lie about the law restricting emergencies?

 

[martybegan]

The person in the ad was not describing an emergency situation.

So how did it lie about the law restricting emergencies?

Florida's law has an exception even for her case, just need two doctors to sign off on it.

That's not banned, that's regulated.

 

[Marener]

Florida's law has an exception even for her case, just need two doctors to sign off on it.

That's not banned, that's regulated.

What does that have to do with the emergency situation as you claimed?

 

[MisterBeale]

And yet it backs LGBT people against people of faith any time it can.

What do you expect from an organization run by faggots, dykes and trannies?

Perfection?



If America is to survive, common ground must be found where it can.

Do you really believe Elon, Tulsi and RFKjr. agree with all of the shit Trump is doing?

 

[martybegan]

What does that have to do with the emergency situation as you claimed?

The emergency situation is part of the law. The law states you can get your abortion if two doctors sign off that your life is in danger. That is waived in the case of an emergency. The ad is still lying when they say abortion would be banned in her situation, as her life was at risk.