Biden regime watching American's Facebook posts and telling Zuckerberg which ones to ban.

[MinTrut]

Simple poll.

"Consulting with experts" does not equal censorship.

Democrats: Fascists & dupes.

 

[Asclepias]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

"but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........

Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying.

Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.

What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?

Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.

Show me in the 1rst what you are talking about?

Oh so in your eyes the 1st Amendment is subjective depending on which party is in control. Got it.

It's up to SCOTUS to determine if any speech qualifies as a breach of the peace or causes violence, not the White House.

Nope. I dont care who is in control. If they want to urge FB to warn others that someone is telling a lie and it can result in death or violence I'm all for it. Again I ask you to show us all the pertinent part of the 1rst that you claim someone is violating.

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

Yeah I figured thats the part you meant. Talking on a private platform isnt free speech for one and having it deleted or tagged by the platform owner with a warning isnt a criminal or civil penalty imposed by the government.

You're ignoring the true spirit (intent) of the 1st Amendment. Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. There's a specific legal difference.

"Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. "

Who told you the government was imposing criminal or civil penalties?

 

[MinTrut]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

How dangerous are Democrats?

See above.

 

[Asclepias]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

How dangerous are Democrats?

See above.

Depends on if we are talking pre southern strategy or not.

 

[cnm]

Simple poll.

I have to say the sight of deplorables being owned is pretty amusing.

 

[MinTrut]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

How dangerous are Democrats?

See above.

Depends on if we are talking pre southern strategy or not.

Actually it does not.

The DemocraTaliban is now the most dangerous group on earth.

Congratulations - there was some serious competition.

 

[MinTrut]

Simple poll.

I have to say the sight of deplorables being owned is pretty amusing.

Demplorables are the worst to be sure.

 

[candycorn]

Simple poll.

Do you still have your Facebook account?

 

[Ringel05]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

"but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........

Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying.

Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.

What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?

Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.

Show me in the 1rst what you are talking about?

Oh so in your eyes the 1st Amendment is subjective depending on which party is in control. Got it.

It's up to SCOTUS to determine if any speech qualifies as a breach of the peace or causes violence, not the White House.

Nope. I dont care who is in control. If they want to urge FB to warn others that someone is telling a lie and it can result in death or violence I'm all for it. Again I ask you to show us all the pertinent part of the 1rst that you claim someone is violating.

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

Yeah I figured thats the part you meant. Talking on a private platform isnt free speech for one and having it deleted or tagged by the platform owner with a warning isnt a criminal or civil penalty imposed by the government.

You're ignoring the true spirit (intent) of the 1st Amendment. Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. There's a specific legal difference.

"Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. "

Who told you the government was imposing criminal or civil penalties?

Isn't that what you said or did I read it wrong?

 

[Asclepias]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

"but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........

Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying.

Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.

What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?

Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.

Show me in the 1rst what you are talking about?

Oh so in your eyes the 1st Amendment is subjective depending on which party is in control. Got it.

It's up to SCOTUS to determine if any speech qualifies as a breach of the peace or causes violence, not the White House.

Nope. I dont care who is in control. If they want to urge FB to warn others that someone is telling a lie and it can result in death or violence I'm all for it. Again I ask you to show us all the pertinent part of the 1rst that you claim someone is violating.

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

Yeah I figured thats the part you meant. Talking on a private platform isnt free speech for one and having it deleted or tagged by the platform owner with a warning isnt a criminal or civil penalty imposed by the government.

You're ignoring the true spirit (intent) of the 1st Amendment. Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. There's a specific legal difference.

"Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. "

Who told you the government was imposing criminal or civil penalties?

Isn't that what you said or did I read it wrong?

You must have read it wrong.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

It's not the governments platform so why are they involved? This is some serious dangerous government creep...

Well …she also said that if you are banned from one platform you should be banned from them all. So…obviously it’s not just Facebook they are in bed with.

It's 1984

 

[Ringel05]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

"but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored"".
So you're okay with censoring every politician alive, all that have lived and all that ever will exist.......... Okay, I'm good with that........

Read further down. I revised and got specific about what type of lying.

Yeah but here's the rub. The Federal government telling or advising a private entity, any private entity to censor anything that is not deemed secret and above is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. The government is by law required to be above that.

What part of the first says the government cant urge private companies to be more responsible?

Sorry but that spin doesn't fly especially when it comes to the 1st Amendment. Besides, more responsible is typically subjective in cases like this, i.e. politically motivated. Granted you won't see it that way but that is reality whether any of us like it or not.

Show me in the 1rst what you are talking about?

Oh so in your eyes the 1st Amendment is subjective depending on which party is in control. Got it.

It's up to SCOTUS to determine if any speech qualifies as a breach of the peace or causes violence, not the White House.

Nope. I dont care who is in control. If they want to urge FB to warn others that someone is telling a lie and it can result in death or violence I'm all for it. Again I ask you to show us all the pertinent part of the 1rst that you claim someone is violating.

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

Yeah I figured thats the part you meant. Talking on a private platform isnt free speech for one and having it deleted or tagged by the platform owner with a warning isnt a criminal or civil penalty imposed by the government.

You're ignoring the true spirit (intent) of the 1st Amendment. Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. There's a specific legal difference.

"Where does the government have the right to impose criminal or civil penalties without substantial proof that some opinions are indeed "intentional" criminal attempts to incite violence or cause a breach of the peace. "

Who told you the government was imposing criminal or civil penalties?

Isn't that what you said or did I read it wrong?

Okay, I read it wrong, my bad.
I'm not discussing Facebook's right to "censor", we're discussing the White House's involvement in that process. Apples and oranges.

 

[BluesLegend]

Not a smidgeon of Dem Nazism am I right.

 

[BluesLegend]

Biden...Making America Greater.

Biden is a sick joke.

306-232
Jokes on you.

PS: August is in 2 weeks...when is your blob going to be back in office?

Not an election thread, Dumbass.

Any comment on Adolf Biden's collusion with Facebook?

Its satire...everything you post is a joke.

You put it in politics fuck face.

306-232. Scoreboard.

So the Biden regime isn't flagging people and telling Facebook to ban them?

Biden: (points at opponent) JEW!!

 

[Dragonlady]

Simple poll

"Consulting with experts" does not equal censorship.

Psaki flat out says that the Admin is flagging posts for facebook.

She also laid out four things that the Admin is requesting of social media companies...

1. That they measure and share data on "the reach of 'misinformation' on their platforms."
2. More robust enforcement (censorship). She notes that 12 people produce about 65% of "anti-vaccine information." The White House wants them banned.
3. Faster censorship. Current censorship is not fast enough for the White House.
4. More official government messages pushed into peoples' "feeds."

When the government is using its immense authority to coerce these companies to censor the content of private citizens, that's called Fascism.

The irony is that as these social media platforms have become de facto arms of the Democrats and therefore current US government, they will arguably not deserve Section 230 protection and must abide by the First Amendment, even if they are technically private companies.

Many of the people that they’re asking to be censored or Russian propaganda sites that are promoting false information about vaccines to undermine the faith of the American public in their government.

Do you think that the Russian government should be able to lie with impunity to try to destroy the nation? How are people reading their lies supposed to know who they are and what their intentions are?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Simple poll

"Consulting with experts" does not equal censorship.

Psaki flat out says that the Admin is flagging posts for facebook.

She also laid out four things that the Admin is requesting of social media companies...

1. That they measure and share data on "the reach of 'misinformation' on their platforms."
2. More robust enforcement (censorship). She notes that 12 people produce about 65% of "anti-vaccine information." The White House wants them banned.
3. Faster censorship. Current censorship is not fast enough for the White House.
4. More official government messages pushed into peoples' "feeds."

When the government is using its immense authority to coerce these companies to censor the content of private citizens, that's called Fascism.

The irony is that as these social media platforms have become de facto arms of the Democrats and therefore current US government, they will arguably not deserve Section 230 protection and must abide by the First Amendment, even if they are technically private companies.

Many of the people that they’re asking to be censored or Russian propaganda sites that are promoting false information about vaccines to undermine the faith of the American public in their government.

Do you think that the Russian government should be able to lie with impunity to try to destroy the nation? How are people reading their lies supposed to know who they are and what their intentions are?

What's next we also must kill down syndrome babies?

 

[eagle7-31]

Biden...Making America Greater.

Biden is a sick joke.

306-232
Jokes on you.

PS: August is in 2 weeks...when is your blob going to be back in office?

Not an election thread, Dumbass.

Any comment on Adolf Biden's collusion with Facebook?

Its satire...everything you post is a joke.

You put it in politics fuck face.

306-232. Scoreboard.

And 4 years ago you were against the elec

Biden...Making America Greater.

Biden is a sick joke.

306-232
Jokes on you.

PS: August is in 2 weeks...when is your blob going to be back in office?

Not an election thread, Dumbass.

Any comment on Adolf Biden's collusion with Facebook?

Its satire...everything you post is a joke.

You put it in politics fuck face.

306-232. Scoreboard.

And just think 4 years ago you wanted the EC abolished. Of course Thief in Chief Biden had lots of help from dominion software and fraudulent vote counts.

 

[eagle7-31]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

It's not the governments platform so why are they involved? This is some serious dangerous government creep...

Well …she also said that if you are banned from one platform you should be banned from them all. So…obviously it’s not just Facebook they are in bed with.

At this point we're fucked. I can not wait for the midterms to put these thieves in check and then 2024 to kick them the fuck out of DC

With the voting system in a number of states rigged so the demrats win no matter what, I am not holding by breath.

 

[Asclepias]

Depends on what is being "censored". If i call someone a poopoo head I dont think that should be "censored" but if someone is lying to the public then I have no problem with it being "censored" especially if its on someones platform that you have no right to be on.

It's not the governments platform so why are they involved? This is some serious dangerous government creep...

Well …she also said that if you are banned from one platform you should be banned from them all. So…obviously it’s not just Facebook they are in bed with.

At this point we're fucked. I can not wait for the midterms to put these thieves in check and then 2024 to kick them the fuck out of DC

With the voting system in a number of states rigged so the demrats win no matter what, I am not holding by breath.

You would kill whats left of your brain if you held your breath. What kind of rigged system votes repubs into office if its done by dems?

 

[Asclepias]

Simple poll

"Consulting with experts" does not equal censorship.

Psaki flat out says that the Admin is flagging posts for facebook.

She also laid out four things that the Admin is requesting of social media companies...

1. That they measure and share data on "the reach of 'misinformation' on their platforms."
2. More robust enforcement (censorship). She notes that 12 people produce about 65% of "anti-vaccine information." The White House wants them banned.
3. Faster censorship. Current censorship is not fast enough for the White House.
4. More official government messages pushed into peoples' "feeds."

When the government is using its immense authority to coerce these companies to censor the content of private citizens, that's called Fascism.

The irony is that as these social media platforms have become de facto arms of the Democrats and therefore current US government, they will arguably not deserve Section 230 protection and must abide by the First Amendment, even if they are technically private companies.

Many of the people that they’re asking to be censored or Russian propaganda sites that are promoting false information about vaccines to undermine the faith of the American public in their government.

Do you think that the Russian government should be able to lie with impunity to try to destroy the nation? How are people reading their lies supposed to know who they are and what their intentions are?

What's next we also must kill down syndrome babies?

No one is trying to kill you.