Ana Navarro: I want them muted, I WANT THEM SILENCED!

[daveman]

The First Amendment? No, obviously not.

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.

Yes, if by "some", you mean "everybody".

I don't want anyone silenced. I want everyone to be able to express and explain their opinions, no matter how stupid or vile they may be.

You know why?

Because I trust people to make the right decisions. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I should be able to pick and choose whose views should be silenced by threat of government force...or whose should be mandated by threat of government force.

 

[Coyote]

Absolutely. So FB has no requirement to give platforms to anyone in the name of free speech.

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.

Yes, if by "some", you mean "everybody".

I don't want anyone silenced. I want everyone to be able to express and explain their opinions, no matter how stupid or vile they may be.

You know why?

Because I trust people to make the right decisions. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I should be able to pick and choose whose views should be silenced by threat of government force...or whose should be mandated by threat of government force.

Well good. Not every rightist feels that way. They feel the media should be more regulated.

 

[daveman]

Indeed. Just as I'm free to point out that they're anti-American pieces of shit.

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.

Yes, if by "some", you mean "everybody".

I don't want anyone silenced. I want everyone to be able to express and explain their opinions, no matter how stupid or vile they may be.

You know why?

Because I trust people to make the right decisions. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I should be able to pick and choose whose views should be silenced by threat of government force...or whose should be mandated by threat of government force.

Well good. Not every rightist feels that way. They feel the media should be more regulated.

Prove it.

 

[Coyote]

You can do that. What you can't do is justify the "anti-American" part. But you have the every right to float opinions you can't justify.

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.

Yes, if by "some", you mean "everybody".

I don't want anyone silenced. I want everyone to be able to express and explain their opinions, no matter how stupid or vile they may be.

You know why?

Because I trust people to make the right decisions. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I should be able to pick and choose whose views should be silenced by threat of government force...or whose should be mandated by threat of government force.

Well good. Not every rightist feels that way. They feel the media should be more regulated.

Prove it.

Why some conservatives want to regulate Facebook and Twitter

Jailing journalists:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-are-guidelines-place/?utm_term=.86145d809a31

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Urgent Advice to Trump – Restore FCC Fairness Doctrine | Armstrong Economics

 

[Pogo]

Yes, we all know you don't support freedom of speech -- which is an inherent right, existing in humans long before it was codified in the First Amendment.

Leftists, however, hate the idea.

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

I'm pretty sure there is no definition of "Congress" that comprises "Nosebook and Tweeter".

Perhaps the loyal opposition can point us to that part of the COTUS specifying "Fecesbook shall make no TOS..."

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

And so that justifies leftists calling for the silencing of voices they disagree with...how, exactly?

Hint: It doesn't, and you're a moron for thinking it does.

That's nice, dear.

You didn't address the question though.

 

[daveman]

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.

Yes, if by "some", you mean "everybody".

I don't want anyone silenced. I want everyone to be able to express and explain their opinions, no matter how stupid or vile they may be.

You know why?

Because I trust people to make the right decisions. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I should be able to pick and choose whose views should be silenced by threat of government force...or whose should be mandated by threat of government force.

Well good. Not every rightist feels that way. They feel the media should be more regulated.

Prove it.

Why some conservatives want to regulate Facebook and Twitter

Jailing journalists:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-are-guidelines-place/?utm_term=.86145d809a31

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Urgent Advice to Trump – Restore FCC Fairness Doctrine | Armstrong Economics

Okay. They're wrong.

 

[daveman]

Does it apply to privately owned companies?

I'm pretty sure there is no definition of "Congress" that comprises "Nosebook and Tweeter".

Perhaps the loyal opposition can point us to that part of the COTUS specifying "Fecesbook shall make no TOS..."

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

And so that justifies leftists calling for the silencing of voices they disagree with...how, exactly?

Hint: It doesn't, and you're a moron for thinking it does.

That's nice, dear.

You didn't address the question though.

I'm not playing your stupid game. And I explained why it's stupid. Your acceptance is neither required nor expected.

 

[Pogo]

I'm pretty sure there is no definition of "Congress" that comprises "Nosebook and Tweeter".

Perhaps the loyal opposition can point us to that part of the COTUS specifying "Fecesbook shall make no TOS..."

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

And so that justifies leftists calling for the silencing of voices they disagree with...how, exactly?

Hint: It doesn't, and you're a moron for thinking it does.

That's nice, dear.

You didn't address the question though.

I'm not playing your stupid game. And I explained why it's stupid. Your acceptance is neither required nor expected.

That's fine. So you have no answer. Duly noted.

 

[daveman]

You're purposefully conflating two different things to hide your hatred for freedom of speech.

I explained it. You can stop lying now.

But then...perhaps you can't.

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

And so that justifies leftists calling for the silencing of voices they disagree with...how, exactly?

Hint: It doesn't, and you're a moron for thinking it does.

That's nice, dear.

You didn't address the question though.

I'm not playing your stupid game. And I explained why it's stupid. Your acceptance is neither required nor expected.

That's fine. So you have no answer. Duly noted.

Looks like you can take your ball and go home now, son.

 

[impuretrash]

So does freedom of speech apply to privately owned companies? That's always a bit of a sticking point. If they are monopolies, a clear argument can be made against censorship. But otherwise, what can or should they be forced to accommodate?

Same things they accommodated for years and years prior to Trump's election.

 

[Kilroy2]

Well Navaro is a Repub strategist

One of yours

Steve Cortes said it best - she is a Republican Leftist

whatever that is

Now don't blame the left when one of yours wants to say things about the repubs

That is the problem it seem repubs like to blame demos for everything

DT is tearing your party to pieces and if you don't wake up soon and reclaim your identity, then a name change may be in order.

 

[skye]

That woman is a fake American. She is a vile, hateful bitch. Of course CNN features her frequently on prime time so she can spew her venom all over our TV screens.

Agree 100%

That's exactly what she is....a vile, hateful bitch.

in other words.....perfect for Crap News Network aka CNN

 

[Pogo]

Suppose you're in a crowded theater. I was going to say 'lecture hall' but at the thought of you being in a lecture hall I collapsed in laughter. So you're in this lecture hall and everybody's using their snarkphones as an ARS or something via Nosebook. Should you have the right to post that the lecture hall is on fire, when you know perfectly well it isn't?

And so that justifies leftists calling for the silencing of voices they disagree with...how, exactly?

Hint: It doesn't, and you're a moron for thinking it does.

That's nice, dear.

You didn't address the question though.

I'm not playing your stupid game. And I explained why it's stupid. Your acceptance is neither required nor expected.

That's fine. So you have no answer. Duly noted.

Looks like you can take your ball and go home now, son.

Believe me, if I were your son I'd borrow one of those guns.

 

[Pogo]

That woman is a fake American. She is a vile, hateful bitch. Of course CNN features her frequently on prime time so she can spew her venom all over our TV screens.

Agree 100%

That's exactly what she is....a vile, hateful bitch.

Irony alert.

 

[Olde Europe]

Freedom of speech? If you own a company, you're free to tell the world you don't support freedom of speech, that you're afraid of differing views.

You ought to check the meaning of "freedom of speech", for I fear the expression doesn't mean what you think it does.

It means exactly what I think it means. Freedom of speech is an inherent human right. Governments have to take action to abridge that right...you know, like how Europe has criminalized criticism of Islam, for example.

Quite obviously, it does not, for you seem to believe that "freedom of speech" means the right to use another person's or entity's property to disseminate speech. This is not the case, as, for example, you have no right to post here, and you also have no right to a square foot on the front page of the NYTimes.

Several on here tried to explain that to you, to no avail whatsoever. Why is that? Really, I'd like to know. Alex Jones is perfectly free to splutter his ghoulish crap just as he was before. He just doesn't get to erect a giant billboard on your (or somebody else's) front yard to disseminate it. The reason why that is has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".

That is not hard to understand or complicated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let the Great Civil War begin: Far left propaganda artists like Ana Navarro demanding the silencing of all conservatives.

Can you imagine had that Fascist pig Hillary won?

 

[Uncensored2008]

They threw in Farrakhan (far left jihadist) on purpose to obfuscate the fact that they did it only to conservatives, and to provide ammunition to people like you to claim "liar" when you blanket label the people banned as conservatives.

Paul Watson is a conservative. Do you disagree?

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

i just think that branding "hate" without clear rules so we can punish people is ripe for abuse. seems like a lot of non hate will get hit in the crossfire of these headgames and all we do in the meantime is give the haters the attention they are after.

I agree. It can be a very slippery slope and I don't know what the answer is.

I've always tended to believe the best thing is sunshine, which is why I oppose things like Holocaust denial laws and laws criminalizing hate speech. It should be up front and in the open where it can be refuted and argued. Criminalizing it drives it underground, and worse - justifies a sense of persecution and righteousness among it's adherents.

But my view is also dependent on the willingness of people to step up and confront these things. What if that isn't happening, and giving them a platform, legitimizes them as publicly acceptable? Part of the mainstream? What do you do?

i think like we both found outctoday, HOW you do it really dictates the outcome. i xant shut someone down i dont like and say im defending free speech. im killing it. maybe worse than who im "fighting"

i think that line of demanding people "shut uo" needs to be pyshed back and oeople need to learn to simply not respond as another way to shut thrm down.

That is true, and these extremes seem to get outsized attention from the media (if it bleeds it reads).

You don't consider yourself "extreme?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well good. Not every rightist feels that way. They feel the media should be more regulated.

That's a lie.

Oh, there are outliers in any population, but the right does not promote regulation of media. It is not the right that promoted the "Fairness Doctrine" or who sought to revoke licensing for talk radio, that was purely you Stalinists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here in America, we support freedom. Well, freedom-supporting Americans do. Leftists don't, your impotent sputtering notwithstanding.

You support freedom for some...I'm sure.

Yes, if by "some", you mean "everybody".

I don't want anyone silenced. I want everyone to be able to express and explain their opinions, no matter how stupid or vile they may be.

You know why?

Because I trust people to make the right decisions. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I should be able to pick and choose whose views should be silenced by threat of government force...or whose should be mandated by threat of government force.

Well good. Not every rightist feels that way. They feel the media should be more regulated.

Prove it.

Why some conservatives want to regulate Facebook and Twitter

Jailing journalists:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-are-guidelines-place/?utm_term=.86145d809a31

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Urgent Advice to Trump – Restore FCC Fairness Doctrine | Armstrong Economics

1. Facebook and Twitter are not the media. They CLAIM to be public forums (like this board) and hence free of publishing guidelines. Where they run afoul is that they are in fact publishers with a particular agenda. I oppose calls to regulate them, the market will deal with their assaults on freedom of speech
2. Barack Obama put 19 Journalists in prison. Donald Tump ZERO - the implication is a direct lie. You are a Stalinist - lying is what you do, but this is just Lenin's "accuse your opponent of what you are doing" technique
3. Behind a pay wall. I will NEVER give the Washington Post a penny. I hope that justice prevails and Nick Sandman sues them out of existence
4. Armstrong is nutjob and has nothing to do with conservatism.

 

[iceberg]

They included Farrakhan because he is a hate monger right in line with the others.

i just think that branding "hate" without clear rules so we can punish people is ripe for abuse. seems like a lot of non hate will get hit in the crossfire of these headgames and all we do in the meantime is give the haters the attention they are after.

I agree. It can be a very slippery slope and I don't know what the answer is.

I've always tended to believe the best thing is sunshine, which is why I oppose things like Holocaust denial laws and laws criminalizing hate speech. It should be up front and in the open where it can be refuted and argued. Criminalizing it drives it underground, and worse - justifies a sense of persecution and righteousness among it's adherents.

But my view is also dependent on the willingness of people to step up and confront these things. What if that isn't happening, and giving them a platform, legitimizes them as publicly acceptable? Part of the mainstream? What do you do?

i think like we both found out today, HOW you do it really dictates the outcome. i want shut someone down i dont like and say im defending free speech. im killing it. maybe worse than who im "fighting"

i think that line of demanding people "shut up" needs to be pushed back and people need to learn to simply not respond as another way to shut them down.

That is true, and these extremes seem to get outsized attention from the media (if it bleeds it reads).

You don't consider yourself "extreme?"

i think at this point we've all been shown to be "extreme" when that's the general tone of the conversation. the trick is, are you still that way when you stop talking in steroetypes and be more specific?