7000-1. Guess Who Won

[martybegan]

All you're doing is running away from a question you don't want to answer. You're demonstrating your own weakness.

I answered it, you just don't like the answer.

 

[colfax_m]

I answered the question, no fines needed using my mechanism.

Why fine them when people can sue them themselves?

I don't care about your mechanism. The question isn't about your mechanism.

Are you okay with a mechanism that uses fines?

 

[colfax_m]

I answered it, you just don't like the answer.

You answered a different question than the one I asked.

Either you're a total moron and don't understand a very plain English or you're intellectually weak enough to refuse to answer a question because you don't like the answer you're going to have to give in order to be internally consistent in your beliefs.

You're not a total moron.

You're intellectually weak.

 

[martybegan]

I don't care about your mechanism. The question isn't about your mechanism.

Are you okay with a mechanism that uses fines?

No, it's not needed. Now lemme see what "gotcha" moment you have been jerking off to the past hours waiting for my response.

 

[martybegan]

You answered a different question than the one I asked.

Either you're a total moron and don't understand a very plain English or you're intellectually weak enough to refuse to answer a question because you don't like the answer you're going to have to give in order to be internally consistent in your beliefs.

You're not a total moron.

You're intellectually weak.

I gave my mechanism, which doesn't need an opinion on fines, because it doesn't use them. my avoidance of fines should indicate my view on it.

But I responded to your previous post to give you your attempted "gotcha" moment so you can take the dildo out of your ass that you've been using in anticipation of said "gotcha" moment.

 

[colfax_m]

No, it's not needed. Now lemme see what "gotcha" moment you have been jerking off to the past hours waiting for my response.

Are you opposed to it only because it's "not needed" or are you opposed to it because assessing fines for social media companies to publish speech they don't want to would be a violation of the first amendment?

 

[Kondor3]

View attachment 583008 One person in Salem Oregon complained about the Iwo Jima mural on the man’s business on private property.

City says remove it or get fined.

Who said Democrats were fascist America haters?

Far Left Mayor Demands Removal of Private, Iwo Jima Flag-Raising Mural. - The National Pulse

The Democratic Mayor of Salem, Oregon – Chuck Bennett – has ordered the removal of a private business owner’s mural depicting the iconic, patriotic flag-raising at Iwo Jima during WWII. The mural is painted on the side of Valley Roofing in Salem, Oregon, which is privately owned by local...

thenationalpulse.com

If any State in the Union ever screamed-out for a (real) Republican make-over, it would be the People's Socialist Democratic Republic of Oregon.

 

[colfax_m]

I gave my mechanism, which doesn't need an opinion on fines, because it doesn't use them. my avoidance of fines should indicate my view on it.

But I responded to your previous post to give you your attempted "gotcha" moment so you can take the dildo out of your ass that you've been using in anticipation of said "gotcha" moment.

I don't give a shit about your mechanism. Your mechanism relies on idiotic ideas like government control of airwaves, which has no application to websites that don't occupy airwaves.

Your mechanism makes it so that websites can't set any standards for content. That's not going to happen because no one actually wants that.

 

[martybegan]

Are you opposed to it only because it's "not needed" or are you opposed to it because assessing fines for social media companies to publish speech they don't want to would be a violation of the first amendment?

What's the difference? The platform's 1st amendment rights were never an issue, because Twitter et al all claim the content on the platforms isn't theirs to begin with.

 

[martybegan]

I don't give a shit about your mechanism. Your mechanism relies on idiotic ideas like government control of airwaves, which has no application to websites that don't occupy airwaves.

Your mechanism makes it so that websites can't set any standards for content. That's not going to happen because no one actually wants that.

airwaves, cable, fiber, all are claimed under FCC jurisdiction.

Websites can set standards, just like other media can, they just can't discriminate politically if they claim to be an open platform and the content on that platform is not theirs.

 

[colfax_m]

What's the difference? The platform's 1st amendment rights were never an issue, because Twitter et al all claim the content on the platforms isn't theirs to begin with.

It's a huge difference. One acknowledges a constitutional violation and one is a mere preference for a different methodology. Their first amendment rights are VERY much an issue. The content exists on their platform and is published using their resources. Their ability to refuse to allow it on their websites is fundamentally a first amendment issue. The right to speak is also the right not to speak. Twitter has a first amendment right not to put content on their sites.

So if a government were to levy fines on the website for not keeping politicians on it, it would be a violation of the first amendment. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[martybegan]

It's a huge difference. One acknowledges a constitutional violation and one is a mere preference for a different methodology. Their first amendment rights are VERY much an issue. The content exists on their platform and is published using their resources. Their ability to refuse to allow it on their websites is fundamentally a first amendment issue. The right to speak is also the right not to speak. Twitter has a first amendment right not to put content on their sites.

So if a government were to levy fines on the website for not keeping politicians on it, it would be a violation of the first amendment. Do you agree or disagree?

They do not claim to be publishers, because that would make them liable for the content.

They can't have it both ways.

It would only be a violation if they said they were publishers, and all opinions on the site were the opinions of themselves, Twitter, Facebooks etc.

 

[colfax_m]

airwaves, cable, fiber, all are claimed under FCC jurisdiction.

Websites can set standards, just like other media can, they just can't discriminate politically if they claim to be an open platform and the content on that platform is not theirs.

No, they're not. Not in the same way. Airwaves are highly regulated since it's a limited public resource. Fiber and cable are private resources who don't have to abide by the same licensing from the FCC.

You said that they shouldn't ban people for content. If they can't ban people for content then they can't set standards for content that would result in banning if they were violated. I.E. harassment of others couldn't be banned because that harassment is content.

 

[Papageorgio]

The isn't really offensive, it is a tribute to the veterans of WWII. I understand the needing a permit but I have a problem with government requiring a private individual paying money to exercise their right to free speech and artistic expression.

 

[colfax_m]

They do not claim to be publishers, because that would make them liable for the content.

They can't have it both ways.

It would only be a violation if they said they were publishers, and all opinions on the site were the opinions of themselves, Twitter, Facebooks etc.

The content exists on their websites and their servers and is delivered on their bandwidth. They have a first amendment right to not include it on their websites.

Fining them for not including things on their websites would violate the first amendment.

 

[Catman51]

He’s not a counter puncher. He’s a puncher who claims victim hood when his actions bite him in the ass.

He’s a bully but he’s enabled by people like you who hate the people he bullies so you ignore this part of him because it’s convenient to do so.

And people like you, those who can't think for themselves, hate Trump and constantly lie about him just because you are jealous and a failure who cannot bear to admit it. Inferiors like you can never admit their own failures.

 

[martybegan]

No, they're not. Not in the same way. Airwaves are highly regulated since it's a limited public resource. Fiber and cable are private resources who don't have to abide by the same licensing from the FCC.

You said that they shouldn't ban people for content. If they can't ban people for content then they can't set standards for content that would result in banning if they were violated. I.E. harassment of others couldn't be banned because that harassment is content.

Harassment is an actual act, not an opinion or a viewpoint.

So the government doesn't regulate cable companies?

 

[martybegan]

The content exists on their websites and their servers and is delivered on their bandwidth. They have a first amendment right to not include it on their websites.

Fining them for not including things on their websites would violate the first amendment.

The first amendment covers YOUR OWN Speech, which these companies say the content on the platform is not. You have a better argument via property rights than the 1st amendment, but even then the companies submit to FCC regulation, so even those are not absolute.

 

[Catman51]

No, you're not fighting back. You're just fighting, then claiming victimhood.

What do you guys really want? To be assholes to whoever you want without repercussion. You've had that for a long time. Now that it's going away, you feel victimized but you don't realize that you've been the ones who have been treating a lot of other people the way you whine about being treated.

And you've been doing it for many decades.

You just described yourself and your actions. You try to bully at all times to get your way and are surprised when anyone rejects your hatred and calls it out for what it is.

"And you've been doing it for many decades", but you are finally being called on it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Can you only win elections by banning access to your opponents to social media?

Joe Biden is sundowning, which is the path to senility.

You haven't answered any of the questions about the lies, Marty. And you're still repeating the lie that Joe Biden is not mentally competent. As long as you continue to defend the lying, and refuse to accept the truth, nothing will change.

Fred Trump died of Alzheimer's. The rage, paranoia, and and belief that every slight must be avenged, is typical of dementia patients. The greater likelihood is that TRUMP is the one who is "sundowning".

That's the reality Marty. Not the bullshit that FOX News is feeding you. But you keep repeating the lies and then claiming your candidates have the right to lie, slander, and denigrate the opposition without any facts to back them up.

You're allowed your own opinions, but not your own facts, Marty.