CDZ Do I have to allow you to post on my website?

[dblack]

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

And then we'll have to address the "Jewish problem".

They aren't a problem because they're Jewish.
They're a problem because they're progressives.

They're a "problem" because they disagree with you and you want to use government to squelch them. The temptation to use government like this is exactly why we have the First Amendment.

 

[koshergrl]

And when you have a movement like that, that is IS the appropriate time for the government to take action.

And then we'll have to address the "Jewish problem".

They aren't a problem because they're Jewish.
They're a problem because they're progressives.

They're a "problem" because they disagree with you and you want to use government to squelch them. The temptation to use government like this is exactly why we have the First Amendment.

Er, no.
They're a problem because they are squelching those who disagree and expose them...and because they are interfering with the free exchange of information and speech.

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

 

[koshergrl]

In fact, they are actually persecuting the free press.

 

[koshergrl]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Didn’t Facebook go public? Should Congress write laws for equal access?

I think it's coming.

 

[Syriusly]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

No

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war

You can refuse to serve almost anyone- as long as you are not refusing to serve them because of their race, creed, national origin, religion, or gender. In some states you can't refuse to serve them because they are gay or handicapped or veterans.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak.

Churches are not normally considered business's, and of course churches can be as discriminatory as they would like- churches can refuse persons for any reason.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

Sort of- but no one service has any obligation to provide you with your soap box to stand on. You can set up your own website and post whatever you want to on it.

 

[dblack]

They're a problem because they are squelching those who disagree and expose them...and because they are interfering with the free exchange of information and speech.

That's not illegal, nor should it be. Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with. Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

 

[Syriusly]

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

Yep. This is these are the excuses liberals use whenever they want a government takeover of some industry or business.

The bottom line is..the left really is seeking to shut down freedom of speech, and overthrow our government. We have to stop pretending otherwise..

Since this is the CDZ I will politely point out that your post is pure Right Wing hysteria.

No one is shutting down your 'freedom of speech'- anymore than Alex Jones is shutting down mine by refusing to let me post comments on his website.

And there is no attempt to 'overthrow the government' despite all of the far right drooling at the idea.

 

[dblack]

. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?.

And now we have Don the Con hinting that government should do something about CNN and the Washington Post......

Government should not be involved.

Yes. I hope you're still with me when the time comes (ie if and when the Democrats decide to go after Fox). You righties and lefties have a way of discovering your libertarian side when you aren't in power - and then forgetting all about it once you are.

(also, would you mind fixing the quote above. your comment is errantly attributed to me).

 

[Syriusly]

. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?.

And now we have Don the Con hinting that government should do something about CNN and the Washington Post......

Government should not be involved.

Yes. I hope you're still with me when the time comes (ie if and when the Democrats decide to go after Fox). You righties and lefties have a way of discovering your libertarian side when you aren't in power - and then forgetting all about it once you are.

(also, would you mind fixing the quote above. your comment is errantly attributed to me).

My apologies- I will try to delete it.

And no- I will not change my mind about the press regardless of whether it is run by Trumpkins or Democrats.

The government should not get involved.

Of course Don the Con is trying very hard to ensure that he is the only trusted source of information for his followers.......

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The biggest problem I see here is the willingness of those who oppose the politics of these openly hard left leaning companies, to continue snuggling up to them.

If you don't like the fact that Farcebook censors Rightwing conversation....why do you keep supporting them with your participation?

If Facebooking is more important than your principles & your freedom then you get what you deserve.
Stop whining.

 

[koshergrl]

They're a problem because they are squelching those who disagree and expose them...and because they are interfering with the free exchange of information and speech.

That's not illegal, nor should it be. Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with. Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

 

[dblack]

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

 

[koshergrl]

This is going to be some random thoughts on an issue I am riding the fence on. Generally I don't find modern life that different than that of Ptolemy's time so even with the internet I just draw on existing laws. This one has me though.

Assuming my website is not an absolute monopoly on something do I have to allow your posts?

If I own a bar I have to serve everyone, even Americans of German descent who can't prove they fought the fatherland in the great war. I don't have to let everyone have a microphone though.

If I own a business, lets say a church, I certainly don't have to let everyone speak. I probably have to let everyone in.

The town's square has to reasonably let everyone in and speak.

The internet sorta is public property, there are a lot of power cables and fibers laid across everyone's private property enabling me to have a website. Them posts are going on my server though.

Throw some more analogies at me from each point of view!

No you don't have to let everybody post on your website.

But let's not be too simplistic..facebook isn't just a *website*...nor is twitter.

These are monoliths that the entire world uses and they have no competition. If you get booted from twitter, there is no comparable system by which to tweet and be seen by the world. There is no comparable system by which you can reach out and speak directly to, say, the president...regardless of your locale.

And there is just nothing like facebook. It's the go-to for communication..whether it's sharing events, stories, pictures, selling things...nothing else compares and everybody is on board. People who are banned from facebook are being banned from speaking in the manner that most people speak.

And?

This rightwing whining about FB doesn't change the fact that FB can't be compelled to host content, the fact that its refusal to host content in no manner violates free speech, and the fact that refusing to host content does not have the effect of silencing anyone or anything.

Yes, it can be compelled.

 

[dblack]

This rightwing whining about FB doesn't change the fact that FB can't be compelled to host content, the fact that its refusal to host content in no manner violates free speech, and the fact that refusing to host content does not have the effect of silencing anyone or anything.

Yes, it can be compelled.

Only if we toss out the Constitution, which seems to be what the Trumpsters are after.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Only if we toss out the Constitution, which seems to be what the Trumpsters are after.

Why do people say stupid shit like this?

 

[dblack]

Only if we toss out the Constitution, which seems to be what the Trumpsters are after.

Why do people say stupid shit like this?

Because Trump fans want government to violate the First Amendment on their behalf.

 

[koshergrl]

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

Are you insinuating I'm lying? About what?

This:
That's not illegal, nor should it be.

Yes, it is illegal to squelch freedom of speech. It is also illegal for huge corporations who control the means by which we communicate, to deliberately limit the ability of people to engage in free speech and public discourse. PARTICULARLY for the purpose of overthrowing the government. It is illegal.

Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with.

Unless they are removing the only, or all, platforms that are used by ordinary people to exchange information and ideas. As I've explained ad nauseum, if corporations come together to deny people their constitutional right to free speech..which is what is happening...then those corporations are breaking the law. And they know it.

Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

This is just a lie. Nobody is clamoring for big government. You people like to pretend that protecting our government from being OVERTHROWN by leftists who daily state their desire to overthrow our government and eliminate the constitution and our protected, human rights..is the same as using the government to violate people's human rights. It isn't.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

 

[koshergrl]

Only if we toss out the Constitution, which seems to be what the Trumpsters are after.

Why do people say stupid shit like this?

They say things like that because it's their way of deflecting from the fact that they actually are working to toss the constitution...

And the best way to do that is to end free speech.

It's what CNN is after, it's what ANTIFA is going for, and it's what leftist trolls all over the internet are working towards.

 

[Syriusly]

They're a problem because they are squelching those who disagree and expose them...and because they are interfering with the free exchange of information and speech.

That's not illegal, nor should it be. Businesses and individuals in society have every right to refuse to accommodate those they disagree with. Republicans used to understand that. They used to be the ones (well, some of them anyway) fighting back against big brother government. Now they're clamoring for it.

Consider: if you get your druthers and the government steps in here, it will establish a dangerous precedent that will be used against you. The Democrats have long hinted that government should "do something" about Fox News and the Koch brothers. Will you be cheering for that as well?

You engage in what we used to call "speaking with forked tongue" btw.

Sometimes it's useful to come at something from a different angle to understand it better.

Yes, sometimes lying is useful, I suppose.

At least, that's what liars say. They can justify anything.

That is what liars do.

 

[dblack]

Nonsense. The government is supposed to step in when well funded enemies of the US set themselves up to shut down free speech, eliminate the free press altogether, and work to not only overthrow our elected president, but our republic as well. Those things are CRIMES.

So, will you be cheering when the Democrats try to shut down Fox?