Who loves censorship?

[White 6]

In my opinion, Conservatives and Independents in small mostly Conservative counties should start boycotting businesses run by Progressives and businesses that hire Progressives. Sadly very few Conservatives support that idea.

Good luck with that, sport.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Good luck with that, sport.

Only time will tell. In counties 70% or more Conservative, boycotts will have a great chance for success. But it would take maybe 5 years for Conservatives to master the new tactic.

 

[White 6]

Only time will tell. In counties 70% or more Conservative, boycotts will have a great chance for success. But it would take maybe 5 years for Conservatives to master the new tactic.

I suspect you are pissing in the wind.

 

[EvMetro]

Just what effect do you think it will have? As long as he doesn't take unilateral action to control them, the way trump took unilateral action to start a trade war, It doesn't bother me a bit. In what reality did his predecessor not complain about media and tell them what they should be doing? None that we lived through.

I'm not seeing anything in any of your posts that demonstrates that you understand what the landmark case means. Let me repost that for you:

I also asked if you be putting that comment together with the landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, where the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

 

[White 6]

I'm not seeing anything in any of your posts that demonstrates that you understand what the landmark case means. Let me repost that for you:

I also asked if you be putting that comment together with the landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, where the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

It never stopped them before. My company even gave me drug tests, the government could not mandate, but encouraged private industry to do. I was the one locally scheduling and recieving the results and at times, letting employees go for breach of agreement to be drug free, though I never had an accident where an employee was actually high on the job.

 

[EvMetro]

It never stopped them before. My company even gave me drug tests, the government could not mandate, but encouraged private industry to do. I was the one locally scheduling and recieving the results and at times, letting employees go for breach of agreement to be drug free, though I never had an accident where an employee was actually high on the job.

Checkmate

 

[Stryder50]

Not just the Right/Conservatives seek Censorship.

In recent years we've seen the call from the Left, advocates for the hypothesis that Climate Change=Global Warming is all "anthropogenic/human caused" and any voices disputing this ("Skeptics", "Deniers", etc.) should be silenced, and not allowed to present counter-points.

Seems one person's "Truth" is another person's "Disinformation" and this has been part of the human condition going back as far as Guv'mints have existed.

We have seen similar such in recent issues of dealing with "COVID" where only one side of the narrative is to be presented and endorsed, and any countering points/considerations should be suppressed.

Hence we now get the Biden "Ministry of Truth" via the Dept. of Homeland Security (USA's modern gestapo).

Ministry of Truth

 

[Stryder50]

Though written from a seemingly Left perspective, this article does illustrate some of the absurdity of censorship;

10 Controversial Classic Books That Have Been Banned​

From the obscene ‘Ulysses’ to the satanic ‘Harry Potter’.
...

10 Controversial Classic Books That Have Been Banned

From the obscene ‘Ulysses’ to the satanic ‘Harry Potter’.

getpocket.com

 

[Stryder50]

Bill Maher blasts Biden's 'Ministry of Truth,' warns Democrats that the Disinformation Governance Board would have had a field day with Obama's big lie ...​

Bill Maher issued a warning that the Biden administration's Disinformation Governance Board could backfire on Democrats. The HBO host hammered home his point by highlighting a lie by former President Barack Obama as an example. Maher also took a shot at the incoming disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz.

In late April, the Department of Homeland Security created the Disinformation Governance Board. At the time of the launch, the DHS said the new department's mission will be to "coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia."

However, a Homeland Security Department memo released earlier this month appears to expand the Disinformation Governance Board's responsibilities and powers:

Disinformation, which is false information that is deliberately spread with the intent to deceive or mislead, can take many forms. When it comes to DHS’s work, the Department is focused on disinformation that threatens the security of the American people, including disinformation spread by foreign states such as Russia, China, and Iran, or other adversaries such as transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations. Such malicious actors often spread disinformation to exploit vulnerable individuals and the American public, including during national emergencies.

On Friday night's episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher," the liberal talk show host said he agreed with the newly-formed department's role in combatting Russian disinformation since "they are our adversary and trying to hurt us." However, Maher was deeply concerned with how the Disinformation Governance Board could be politically weaponized.
...

Bill Maher blasts Biden's 'Ministry of Truth,' warns Democrats that the Disinformation Governance Board would have had a field day with Obama's big lie

Bill Maher issued a warning that the Biden administration's Disinformation Governance Board could backfire on Democrats. The HBO host hammered home his point by highlighting a lie by former President Barack Obama as an example. Maher also took a shot at the incoming disinformation czar Nina...

www.theblaze.com

 

[Stryder50]

Liberal Doomsday Scenario: Free Speech on Twitter​

...
I want to send flowers and chocolates to the Twitter employee who permanently suspended The Babylon Bee. Maybe a car. Apparently, it was the inanity of that decision that incensed Elon Musk, whereupon he decided to purchase the entire platform to stop the censorship.

Liberals, until five minutes ago: Elon Musk is a climate hero! Electric cars! Solar power! He loves Obama!

Liberals, five minutes ago: He believes in free speech? Fascist!

Loads of liberals are threatening to leave Twitter if Musk's deal goes through. To those who will miss The New York Times' Charles Blow, I understand. I will try to ease the pain by tweeting, every day for the rest of my life: "[FILL IN THE BLANK] is racist!"

If you're wondering why liberals are freaking out over the idea of free speech on one single internet platform, it's because their ideas are so well thought-out and compellingly argued that they must have total control of all social media, mainstream media, entertainment, elementary schools, colleges, universities, nonprofits, corporate PR departments, government funding agencies, advertising firms and on and on and on. Any interruption to Big Brother being pumped into our brains 24 hours a day, and everything falls apart.
...

Liberal Doomsday Scenario: Free Speech on Twitter

I want to send flowers and chocolates to the Twitter employee who permanently suspended The Babylon Bee. Maybe a car. Apparently, it was the inanity of that decision that incensed

townhall.com

 

[EvMetro]

Lefties absolutely love censorship, it is the life blood of leftyism.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let's first be clear on what censorship is, here is how Wikipedia defines censorship:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

Notice that censorship is censorship, regardless of if it is the government, a private institution, or other controlling bodies. If a private institution suppresses speech, it is still censorship. Censorship is still censorship, even when it isn't the government that is doing it.

Censorship is still censorship, regardless of if it is legal or not, regardless of if it is a violation of our first amendment rights or not, regardless of if it is right or wrong. Censorship is simply suppression of speech that is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".

So who loves censorship? All we have to do is watch how this thread unfolds, and we will see one side of the aisle supporting and defending censorship, and the other condemning it. Watch.

Wiki is not acceptable as a source to base a discussion on.

 

[EvMetro]

Yep, lefties like Remodeling Maidiac will even attempt to redefine the meaning of censorship in an effort to protect it. Lefties need censorship in order to enforce their narrative.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yep, lefties like Remodeling Maidiac will even attempt to redefine the meaning of censorship in an effort to protect it. Lefties need censorship in order to enforce their narrative.

Trolling fail lol

Welcome to ignore, idiot

 

[EvMetro]

So who loves censorship? All we have to do is watch how this thread unfolds, and we will see one side of the aisle supporting and defending censorship, and the other condemning it. Watch.

The above quote is from the opening post. Now that the thread has unfolded, we can see that lefties are supporting and defending censorship and righties are condemning it. It's almost like whoever wrote the opening post KNEW that lefties would be supporting and defending censorship.

 

[whitehall]

You don't have to "love" exceptions to the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights. You just have to respect them.

 

[EvMetro]

You don't have to "love" exceptions to the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights. You just have to respect them.

I do not respect exceptions to the bill of rights, especially when they are meant specifically to deceive me and to suppress my rights.

You are further demonstrating the point of my thread with your supporting and defending of censorship. See how I predicted your post right there in my opening post? I saw your post coming before you even saw the thread. You are validating my OP like clockwork.

 

[jackflash]

The above quote is from the opening post. Now that the thread has unfolded, we can see that lefties are supporting and defending censorship and righties are condemning it. It's almost like whoever wrote the opening post KNEW that lefties would be supporting and defending censorship.

Censorship is nothing less than a last ditch power & control attempt by one group of folks over an opposing group of folks. Censorship has it's pluses & minuses for sure, depending on what side of the fence one is standing on. Generally censorship leads to persecution of some sorts or another so is viewed as a negative by MOST folks as censorship can definitely be a two edged sword. BOTH the left & the right have managed to get censorship into law before but with severe consequences further up the road(double edged sword effect/payback is a bitch!). Censorship can best be viewed as the "Alamo situation" where one still holds the advantage but that advantage is slipping away RAPIDLY, meaning censorship is a last ditch effort to forestall the inevitable.

 

[HaShev]

Let's first be clear on what censorship is, here is how Wikipedia defines censorship:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

Notice that censorship is censorship, regardless of if it is the government, a private institution, or other controlling bodies. If a private institution suppresses speech, it is still censorship. Censorship is still censorship, even when it isn't the government that is doing it.

Censorship is still censorship, regardless of if it is legal or not, regardless of if it is a violation of our first amendment rights or not, regardless of if it is right or wrong. Censorship is simply suppression of speech that is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".

So who loves censorship? All we have to do is watch how this thread unfolds, and we will see one side of the aisle supporting and defending censorship, and the other condemning it. Watch.

And if we looked up irony, it's Wikipedia's hypocrisy to define what itself has done to many-including my own submission of information rejected and censored not based on inaccuracy or misinformation, but based on not wanting to upset the status quo or advertisers.
In the past, I've been censored from
Scripture specialist Jack Van Impe's forum
"for posting scripture", that they like to dance around.
I've been censored here, for posting about the Russian hoax and spygate, while Russia Russia Russia rant and psychosis was allowed to stay on the political forum.
When I was proven right all along, nobody appologized nor moved the topics back to politics nor reinstated any closed topics.
Were the censors removed of their job responsibilities for mishandling the power they possessed?
I've even had an openly Christian run community trade paper refuse an ad (censorship) for being tied to Jewish volunteerism and charitable activities. They too refused an ad with scripture even though they place verses all over their paper, certain verses are censored for being too revealing the true nature of their worship or falsehoods.
Through history silly stasists censored people even tortured them, for being right about the earth being round, revolving around the sun, Biden being incompetent and would be worse then Jimmy Carter, etc...

 

[EvMetro]

Censorship can best be viewed as the "Alamo situation" where one still holds the advantage but that advantage is slipping away RAPIDLY, meaning censorship is a last ditch effort to forestall the inevitable.

I like this verbiage. Those who are using and endorsing censorship know deep down that they are having to use such shameful tactics to cover what they cannot defend. Those who have the real advantage don't need to use such shameful tactics, since the inevitable truth is on our side. We can talk right out in the open, and we don't need to censor, deplatform, delete, or otherwise cheat from the cover of darkness and anonymous authority.