bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,329
- 2,180
How can there be no force involved when his salary is paid with taxpayer money?It’s not as long as there’s no force.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How can there be no force involved when his salary is paid with taxpayer money?It’s not as long as there’s no force.
Let me see.... Threats to remove publisher protections if they did not comply with his request is the use of FORCE. You people are so damn gullible...It’s not as long as there’s no force.
You are a fucking moron.REally?
You say that but I see no proof. All I see is private businesses exercising their right to not host people on their platform and I see people that you say have been banned are still on the internet
You are so far off that you’d qualify as being “not even wrong”.I already demonstrated that force is involved, dumbass.
LOL - that's like telling someone who was beat, nearly to death, "What are you whining about? You're still breathing. I don't see what your problem is."No he isn't. He is still on the web so I don't see what your problem is.
They can. But what if it wasn't their idea?Facebook is a privately owned company and can refuse to offer their service to anyone it doesn't want on their platform.
Yes there is no discussion because Alex Jones is still on the web streaming his shows and shilling his products every dayYou are a fucking moron.
End of discussion.
It’s impossible for the White House to do so.Let me see.... Threats to remove publisher protections if they did not comply with his request is the use of FORCE. You people are so damn gullible...
You are so far off that you’d qualify as being “not even wrong”.
So Facebook not allowing some people to use their platform is now the same as getting beaten nearly to death?LOL - that's like telling someone who was beat, nearly to death, "What are you whining about? You're still breathing. I don't see what your problem is."
They can. But what if it wasn't their idea?
Look at another scenario. If the local police kept a list of "troublemakers", and "asked" the local bars to refuse service to them. Would you have a problem with that?
Impossible for the Whitehouse to do what?It’s impossible for the White House to do so.
You already admitted he has to jump through hoops to do it.Yes there is no discussion because Alex Jones is still on the web streaming his shows and shilling his products every day
Let’s see the precedent which backs that up.nope, an agent can conspire with the state to violate the law
Do you need everything explained to you?Impossible for the Whitehouse to do what?
I can never quite tell whether you're playing dumb, or not playing. We're talking about government coercing FB into doing their bidding.So Facebook not allowing some people to use their platform is now the same as getting beaten nearly to death?
I wouldn't piss on Jones if he were on fire. But this isn't about Jones. This is about the legal principles that our society is founded on. You idiots are ready to toss them away, just to get one over on people you don't like.Alex Jones still looks like a fat slob I don't think he's on death's door because of facebook but rather because he's a fat slob
Bull shit... Section 230 is enforced by the FCC which is under the direction of the executive. He can choose to not enforce it just as he does our immigration laws. Quit being deceptive.It’s impossible for the White House to do so.
I can never quite tell whether you playing dumb, or not playing. We're talking about government coercing FB into doing their bidding.
I wouldn't piss on Jones if he were on fire. But this isn't about Jones. This is about the legal principles that our society is founded on. You idiots are ready to toss them away, just to get one over on people you don't like.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i’ve already provided the case lawLet’s see the precedent which backs that up.
I need to have your idiocies explained.Do you need everything explained to you?
Yes, yes you do because you are a moron.