7000-1. Guess Who Won

[colfax_m]

Then they can get sued for illegal speech or threatening speech?

It doesn't violate THEIR rights, they can say what they want. However if they continue to be a digital commons, they need to be treated as a real commons.

No, the law says they can't be sued for illegal or threatening speech.

It does violate their rights if you're going to start regulating what speech they have to promote and perpetuate. They have a first amendment right not to do so.

Your boy Desantis wants to give special rights to politicians and violate the rights of social media platforms by fining them for not protecting them. You claim on one hand to defend freedom of speech but you support the people who are attacking it.

Federal judge blocks Florida's social media law

Conservatives had seized on the law as a way to combat perceived censorship by online platforms toward former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

www.politico.com

 

[Catman51]

Social media isn't the government. They don't have to participate in someone else's speech if they don't want.

They represent and defend censoring public speech that does not conform to their hatred, just like you.

You attack when anyone dares to disagree with your plans for sewing hatred, labeling them just plain stupid for using their own minds. I would suggest that you use your own mind but it has been conscripted by the left and is for their use only.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Needs a permit.

Why?

 

[Papageorgio]

Once again, find a thread on here of people whining because McDonalds was forced to keep their sign to a smaller size.

Then you can accuse me of lying. I have never in my life known anyone that whined about the golden arches being too small due to city rules.

So McDonald's was able to put a sign up to advertise there business, much different than having a mural painted.

 

[Catman51]

The fact the you believe the "left controls the MSM", shows YOU to be a total moron. That's the original lie of the billionaire owned right wing media. The one they used to convince you to pay no attention to facts and reality, while they pummeled you with outrage and lies.

The Prime Minister of New Zealand is right. New Zealanders are happy with their government because they don't have conservative media owned by Rupert Murdoch pumping lies and hate about the left, into their homes 24/7. In England, the USA and Australia, you have these angry outraged right wingers who are convinced that the left is the devil personified.

Canada, New Zealand and Australia are managing the virus far more successfully than you are. For that matter, you're not handling the virus at all, you're letting it run unchecked throughout the country, killing hundreds of thousands of people, while the billionaires tell you not to take the vaccines. THEY took the vaccines. Rupert Murdoch was one of the first to get it, but he tells you not to get the vaccine.

The Murdochs (Fox News, NY Post, WSJ), the Mercers (Breitbart, Cambridge Analytica), and the Sinclairs (Sinclair Broadcasting), are flooding American airwaves with right wing lies and propaganda, and you're spouting right now.

Think about this and ask yourself why.

How Much Money America’s Billionaires Have Made During The Covid-19 Pandemic

Surging markets have been especially good to the richest people in the country.

www.forbes.com

The fact that you think the MSM controls its own message with direction from the left shows just how much of a moron you are. I bet you cannot remember ever having an original thought with0out the permission of the leftist masters you serve.

As for the content of your post, pure BS concocted by your masters telling you what to think...Again.

 

[colfax_m]

They represent and defend censoring public speech that does not conform to their hatred, just like you.

You attack when anyone dares to disagree with your plans for sewing hatred, labeling them just plain stupid for using their own minds. I would suggest that you use your own mind but it has been conscripted by the left and is for their use only.

You can speak in public. Go on a street corner and say whatever you want.

The second you go on someone else’s property to speak, you’re subjecting yourself to their rules.

 

[martybegan]

Harassment is always going to be a somewhat subjective call. There's no way around it.

You said that they couldn't take down content that they didn't like. Now you're saying they can take down content. Which is it?

It's pretty easy to figure out if you aren't a complete idiot. Usually it involves directed multiple contacts, not just posting something someone finds offensive.

Public Universities deal with 1st amendment issues in their student groups and speech, and they seem to handle it while still punishing harassment. You act like its never been done before.

 

[martybegan]

No, the law says they can't be sued for illegal or threatening speech.

It does violate their rights if you're going to start regulating what speech they have to promote and perpetuate. They have a first amendment right not to do so.

Your boy Desantis wants to give special rights to politicians and violate the rights of social media platforms by fining them for not protecting them. You claim on one hand to defend freedom of speech but you support the people who are attacking it.

Federal judge blocks Florida's social media law

Conservatives had seized on the law as a way to combat perceived censorship by online platforms toward former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

www.politico.com

Again, and let me say this slowly, the content on their sites IS NOT THIER SPEECH. They themselves say this, again to get 731 protections.

Do you think banning an entire party in a two party system from 80% of social media is a good thing? Yes or no.

 

[colfax_m]

It's pretty easy to figure out if you aren't a complete idiot. Usually it involves directed multiple contacts, not just posting something someone finds offensive.

Public Universities deal with 1st amendment issues in their student groups and speech, and they seem to handle it while still punishing harassment. You act like its never been done before.

Sure. Because who ever heard of a university being sued because they called speech harassment that was constitutionally protected. Don’t be a moron. You know this is a contentious issue. This winds up in the Supreme Court from time to time.

Twitter isn’t a public university. If you owned a restaurant, you could kick someone out for acting in a manner that is legal and constitutionally protected because it caused the rest of the customers to feel uncomfortable.

But under your proposal Twitter wouldn’t have that right to regulate their own private property.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They left out the part where murals have to be permitted before they can be painted on buildings.

Private building, private property.

The city has no legitimate say how the owner of such a building chooses to paint it. No authority to demand that the owner obtain the city's permission to paint it.

This absolutely falls solidly under the First Amendment, as well as under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[colfax_m]

Again, and let me say this slowly, the content on their sites IS NOT THIER SPEECH. They themselves say this, again to get 731 protections.

Do you think banning an entire party in a two party system from 80% of social media is a good thing? Yes or no.

If it’s on their site, it’s under their rights.

No, it’s not a good thing. That doesn’t mean you get to deprive them of their rights to do so. The constitution protects us from government thugs like Desantis.

 

[martybegan]

Sure. Because who ever heard of a university being sued because they called speech harassment that was constitutionally protected. Don’t be a moron. You know this is a contentious issue. This winds up in the Supreme Court from time to time.

Twitter isn’t a public university. If you owned a restaurant, you could kick someone out for acting in a manner that is legal and constitutionally protected because it caused the rest of the customers to feel uncomfortable.

But under your proposal Twitter wouldn’t have that right to regulate their own private property.

But it is an issue that is being dealt with, and the platforms can deal with.

What "property" They claim to be an open platform.

The real thing you want is to not have to compete with opposing viewpoints. Its easier to let your corporate betters do the dirty work for you.

If Trump is the nominee how is having a Presidential Candidate banned from a major platform indicative of a fair election?

What about CNN deciding not to cover or even admit Trump is running?

 

[martybegan]

If it’s on their site, it’s under their rights.

No, it’s not a good thing. That doesn’t mean you get to deprive them of their rights to do so. The constitution protects us from government thugs like Desantis.

Then let them own the speech. Remove 731 protections and make them liable for anything on their site.

So again, If Trump runs should Twitter restore him? What if CNN and MSNBC decide to ignore anything Trump says or if he is even running?

Should twitter ban DeSantis now just in case he is the nominee?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Would you feel the same if a person in the house next to you painted a huge mural on the side of their house honoring Che or Mao or maybe they are wiccans and paint a huge pentagram on the house?

His house, his property.

Why do you assume that I would claim any authority to dictate what my neighbor is allowed to express?

Just because you degenerate filth on the left wrong are all for censoring expressions of anything you find disagreeable, and even punishing those how dare to make such expressions, does not mean that sane human beings share any part of your enthusiasm for censorship and suppression.

 

[colfax_m]

But it is an issue that is being dealt with, and the platforms can deal with.

What "property" They claim to be an open platform.

The real thing you want is to not have to compete with opposing viewpoints. Its easier to let your corporate betters do the dirty work for you.

If Trump is the nominee how is having a Presidential Candidate banned from a major platform indicative of a fair election?

What about CNN deciding not to cover or even admit Trump is running?

What property? Platforms are websites that exist on servers developed and maintained at the cost of the owner. When the content is on their property, it’s under their rights. Forcing them to not only maintain but promote and distribute speech violates their first amendment rights.

The fairness of an election has nothing to do with whether a candidate is on Twitter or what coverage they get from cable news.

The fairness of an election is not dependent on people exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

 

[colfax_m]

Then let them own the speech. Remove 731 protections and make them liable for anything on their site.

So again, If Trump runs should Twitter restore him? What if CNN and MSNBC decide to ignore anything Trump says or if he is even running?

Should twitter ban DeSantis now just in case he is the nominee?

Desantis is a thug who thinks he can use government to create special rights for politicians.

I thought you’re opposed to this kind of authoritarianism.

 

[martybegan]

What property? Platforms are websites that exist on servers developed and maintained at the cost of the owner. When the content is on their property, it’s under their rights. Forcing them to not only maintain but promote and distribute speech violates their first amendment rights.

The fairness of an election has nothing to do with whether a candidate is on Twitter or what coverage they get from cable news.

The fairness of an election is not dependent on people exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

To them it's a bunch of 0's and 1's, nothing more or less.

Again, it's not their speech, they have said that plenty of times.

You only don't care about the bans because people you disagree with are being banned. it suits your political goals, so you bend over and suck corporate dick.

 

[martybegan]

Desantis is a thug who thinks he can use government to create special rights for politicians.

I thought you’re opposed to this kind of authoritarianism.

Thug? He's trying to level the playing field, nothing more or less.

Sorry, but if you claim to be an open platform, claim the contents are not your speech, and then decide to take sides then you deserve everything you get.

 

[Catman51]

You can speak in public. Go on a street corner and say whatever you want.

The second you go on someone else’s property to speak, you’re subjecting yourself to their rules.

Then you are saying that the person who built this monument, on his personal property, has every right to live by his own rules. Just the opposite of what you have been declaring on your every post on this subject.

Make up your little mind, sheep.

 

[colfax_m]

To them it's a bunch of 0's and 1's, nothing more or less.

Again, it's not their speech, they have said that plenty of times.

You only don't care about the bans because people you disagree with are being banned. it suits your political goals, so you bend over and suck corporate dick.

A book isn't the speech of a book store, but they're sure as hell within their rights to take things off the shelf they don't want to be selling. The speech exists on their platform and they have a first amendment right not to disseminate it.

You only care about the bans because they're people you agree with. If it weren't your heroes being banned, you might recognize that this is government that is violating the constitution. Instead, you'll support authoritarian government thugs because it suits your political goals.