7000-1. Guess Who Won

[colfax_m]

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.

At first, I thought the property owner would lose a court case but I reviewed some literature and now I think they'd probably prevail.

I think the city is probably acting unconstitutionally.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

He's using the government to fine people for not supporting his political buddies in violation of their first amendment rights.

You want the government to punish them because they didn't take your side. That's what thugs do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Bad analogy a book store is NOT shielded by Government from being sued.

 

[colfax_m]

Bad analogy a book store is NOT shielded by Government from being sued.

A bookstore cannot be sued for the content of the books it sells.

It's not "their speech".

 

[martybegan]

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.

And therefore alter the balance of access to one political party over another, while all the time claiming to be an open platform. Then fine, remove 731 protections and let them be liable for it if it is their speech.

Show me where I have ever said lefties should be banned for anything.

Your support is for Twitter and Facebook's dick up your ass.

 

[martybegan]

He's using the government to fine people for not supporting his political buddies in violation of their first amendment rights.

You want the government to punish them because they didn't take your side. That's what thugs do.

By violating the speech of others, to favor one political view over another.

Trump wasn't banned for breaking any terms of service, he was banned because Twitter doesn't like him.

Greene wasn't banned for breaking any terms of service, it's because they felt like it.

You would LOVE an election where one side had all the access, and the other didn't, because you know it's the only way you can win.

FOAD.

 

[colfax_m]

And therefore alter the balance of access to one political party over another, while all the time claiming to be an open platform. Then fine, remove 731 protections and let them be liable for it if it is their speech.

Show me where I have ever said lefties should be banned for anything.

Your support is for Twitter and Facebook's dick up your ass.

Liability has nothing to do with it, that's just a cudgel used as punishment. Remove 230 protections and it actually makes the problem worse, not better.

But you're not actually trying to make it better. You're just trying to use government thugs to get your way. You want access to someone else's property because it's valuable to you politically.

You claim to support the constitution but this shows that you really don't give a shit. You just want to win.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A bookstore cannot be sued for the content of the books it sells.

It's not "their speech".

So what? You can not have it both wats either twitter is a fair unbiased site that deserves protection or it is not and does not deserve protection.

 

[colfax_m]

By violating the speech of others, to favor one political view over another.

Trump wasn't banned for breaking any terms of service, he was banned because Twitter doesn't like him.

Greene wasn't banned for breaking any terms of service, it's because they felt like it.

You would LOVE an election where one side had all the access, and the other didn't, because you know it's the only way you can win.

FOAD.

They're not violating the speech of others because there is no right to speak on Twitter.

You are willing to violate the first amendment to help your politicians win. That's wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Liability has nothing to do with it, that's just a cudgel used as punishment. Remove 230 protections and it actually makes the problem worse, not better.

But you're not actually trying to make it better. You're just trying to use government thugs to get your way. You want access to someone else's property because it's valuable to you politically.

You claim to support the constitution but this shows that you really don't give a shit. You just want to win.

What thugs? So any law is a thug now? Funny how SJW's like you run to laws when it suits you.

Isn't the lefts mantra that "Corporations aren't people"?

Twitter is publicly traded, it isn't like we are forcing people to take on views they don't want.

 

[colfax_m]

So what? You can not have it both wats either twitter is a fair unbiased site that deserves protection or it is not and does not deserve protection.

Why can't you have it both ways?

 

[martybegan]

They're not violating the speech of others because there is no right to speak on Twitter.

You are willing to violate the first amendment to help your politicians win. That's wrong.

There should be. if Twitter is going to be the new public commons, then it should be treated as such.

Twitter can still make its money, and all political views can be represented.

You just want an echo chamber.

 

[colfax_m]

What thugs? So any law is a thug now? Funny how SJW's like you run to laws when it suits you.

Isn't the lefts mantra that "Corporations aren't people"?

Twitter is publicly traded, it isn't like we are forcing people to take on views they don't want.

A politician using government to force private citizens to support their political buddies is a thug.

That's the kind of shit for authoritarian governments. You only care about winning by any means necessary.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A politician using government to force private citizens to support their political buddies is a thug.

That's the kind of shit for authoritarian governments. You only care about winning by any means necessary.

Be specific and explain how allowing a republican on twitter si forcing twitter to support them and then admit you just said banning republicans is ok cause twitter doesnt politically agree with them

 

[colfax_m]

There should be. if Twitter is going to be the new public commons, then it should be treated as such.

Twitter can still make its money, and all political views can be represented.

You just want an echo chamber.

There shouldn't be. Not if we still value the freedoms provided by the constitution. You can't force others to promote your speech.

If you want your content to be on the internet, put it on there yourself. Don't use thugs to make others do it for you.

All politicians already have equal access. You just don't realize it.

 

[martybegan]

A politician using government to force private citizens to support their political buddies is a thug.

That's the kind of shit for authoritarian governments. You only care about winning by any means necessary.

Lets see what the courts say about it.

All I want is a level playing field for elections. You don't.

If Trump is the candidate and is banned from 80% of social media via bandwidth, is the election fair?

If DeSantis wins and he is banned from 80% of social media via bandwidth, is the election fair?

 

[colfax_m]

Be specific and explain how allowing a republican on twitter si forcing twitter to support them and then admit you just said banning republicans is ok cause twitter doesnt politically agree with them

If being on twitter wasn't advantageous for politicians, they wouldn't whine so much when they're kicked off the platform.

 

[colfax_m]

Lets see what the courts say about it.

All I want is a level playing field for elections. You don't.

If Trump is the candidate and is banned from 80% of social media via bandwidth, is the election fair?

If DeSantis wins and he is banned from 80% of social media via bandwidth, is the election fair?

If Fox News trashes Biden for 24 hours a day, is the election fair?

Yes.

The fairness of an election does not depend on how others exercise their free speech.

 

[martybegan]

If Fox News trashes Biden for 24 hours a day, is the election fair?

Yes.

The fairness of an election does not depend on how others exercise their free speech.

TV isn't interactive, TV doesn't claim to be an open platform. Various channels would need to have a 80% market share AND ban any references to Trump to be comparable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Fox News trashes Biden for 24 hours a day, is the election fair?

Yes.

The fairness of an election does not depend on how others exercise their free speech.

God you are a retard.