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

[koshergrl]

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.

Another lie.

Our constitution absolutely provides for our government protecting our freedom of speech.

In fact, that is specifically and almost exclusively what our government is charged with.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

They've tried already, lol.
And they're still trying.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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.

No one wants to end free speech more than Don the Con and his supporters.

They want only one true source of 'facts'- Trump's tweets- and Fox's reposting of them.

 

[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?

They've tried already, lol.
And they're still trying.

Are you cheering for them? Or is it "different when we do it"?

 

[Pogo]

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.

I keep asking these wags how Nosebook's decision on Alex John Brinkley Jones' content, affects Alex John Brinkley Jones' website. Nobody's got an answer. I keep askin' 'em if Alex John Brinkley Jones' website has been shut down. No answer.

Clearly he can post whatever the fuck he wants on his own website and spew whatever bile he wallows in on his radio show, so the content isn't the issue and never was since that's not even affected. What is affected is reach. They seem to believe not just that the world owes them TOS-free platforms but VOLUME. They're butthurt that the propaganda won't sell if it doesn't have the YouTubes and Spotifys and Nosebooks behind it --- which damn sure doesn't say much for the quality of whatever the argument is.

It's much like John Brinkley not being allowed to sell goat testicles on his radio station in Kansas, so he goes over the border to Mexico and starts pumping a quarter million watts. Con artists need audience to sell their shit.

It's also the reverse side of the same coin we had a week ago where Sean Spicer tried to threaten the Associated Press for passing on --- not originating but simply passing on --- a story that put Spicer in a negative light. Again, their problem is not with the content but with the question of 'how many people will read it'. Apparently they believe Alex John Brinkley Jones' points are so weak they must be splashed across every virtual billboard in the universe to reach an audience, which means he's on a par with Billy Mays. As if anyone actually interested in Alex John Brinkley Jones' freak show can't simply dial up HIS website instead of YouTube.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Another lie.

Our constitution absolutely provides for our government protecting our freedom of speech.

In fact, that is specifically and almost exclusively what our government is charged with.

No- sorry- the Bill of Rights says that Government cannot interfere with our freedom of speech.

It doesn't say that the government must protect your 'freedom of speech' on private platforms.

Certainly it doesn't say that either Infowars or Facebook have any obligation to let you post anything you want.

 

[dblack]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

They've tried already, lol.
And they're still trying.

Are you cheering for them? Or is it "different when we do it"?

Irrelevant/attempting to change the narrative..and has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Pogo]

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 it's one of his campaign promises.

​

 

[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?

They've tried already, lol.
And they're still trying.

Are you cheering for them? Or is it "different when we do it"?

Irrelevant/attempting to change the narrative..and has nothing to do with the topic.

I has everything to do with the topic. You partisans never seem to be able to look beyond the end of your nose. It might seem like a great idea to have government bully Facebook when your goons are in charge. But the other side will have their due, and they'll use everything you give them. If you authorize the government clamping down on your political opponents, then, if and when your political opponents are back in power, they will use the government to clamp down on you. That's apparently a really hard thing for some people to understand.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Here's a perfect example:

--- that's the website "CNS so-called News" deleting my posts when I called out bullshit they wrote so that they aren't bothered by being called out and can go on publishing fabrications. They have me blocked because I'll call them out if they don't.

Gotta love the way they go "we are unable to post your comment" ---- as if it's out of their fucking control

Does that stop me from posting the same points about the same topic here? Or anywhere else? Hell no.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

They've tried already, lol.
And they're still trying.

Are you cheering for them? Or is it "different when we do it"?

Irrelevant/attempting to change the narrative..and has nothing to do with the topic.

I has everything to do with the topic. You partisans never seem to be able to look beyond the end of your nose. It might seem like a great idea to have government bully Facebook when your goons are in charge. But the other side will have their due, and they'll use everything you give them. If you authorize the government clamping down on your political opponents, then, if and when your political opponents are back in power, they will use the government to clamp down on you. That's apparently a really hard thing for some people to understand.

I am not cheering for democrats in their continued push to shut down free speech. Whether they are attempting to shut down Fox, or Alex Jones, or whether they are fighting to force the president to restrict his own speech and force him to speak through CNN.

And forcing the monopolies to stop working together to eliminate free speech, and to present a false narrative to the world by which they hope to overthrow our president and our government, is not in any way, shape or form the *same* as actively working to suppress the constitutional rights of American citizens.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Another lie.

Our constitution absolutely provides for our government protecting our freedom of speech.

In fact, that is specifically and almost exclusively what our government is charged with.

No- sorry- the Bill of Rights says that Government cannot interfere with our freedom of speech.

It doesn't say that the government must protect your 'freedom of speech' on private platforms.

Certainly it doesn't say that either Infowars or Facebook have any obligation to let you post anything you want.

It isn't "interfering with freedom of speech" to stop people from suppressing free speech.

And shutting down Infowards isn't an example of *freedom of speech* lolol.It's an example of suppressing free speech.
Which of course, our government is obligated to protect.


You people are funny.

 

[koshergrl]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

Another irrelevant and completely bizarre post.

Who is pretending to be libertarian?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER your commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

 

[Syriusly]

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

They've tried already, lol.
And they're still trying.

Are you cheering for them? Or is it "different when we do it"?

Irrelevant/attempting to change the narrative..and has nothing to do with the topic.

I has everything to do with the topic. You partisans never seem to be able to look beyond the end of your nose. It might seem like a great idea to have government bully Facebook when your goons are in charge. But the other side will have their due, and they'll use everything you give them. If you authorize the government clamping down on your political opponents, then, if and when your political opponents are back in power, they will use the government to clamp down on you. That's apparently a really hard thing for some people to understand.

I am not cheering for democrats in their continued push to shut down free speech. Whether they are attempting to shut down Fox, or Alex Jones, or whether they are fighting to force the president to restrict his own speech and force him to speak through CNN..

I am not cheering for Republicans in their continued push to shut down free speech. Whether they are attempting to shut down Washington Post, or CNN, or Black Lives Matter, or when they applaud the President's efforts to restrict all speech to his tweets- and outlets like Fox News which are reliably in the bag for Don the Con.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Another lie.

Our constitution absolutely provides for our government protecting our freedom of speech.

In fact, that is specifically and almost exclusively what our government is charged with.

No- sorry- the Bill of Rights says that Government cannot interfere with our freedom of speech.

It doesn't say that the government must protect your 'freedom of speech' on private platforms.

Certainly it doesn't say that either Infowars or Facebook have any obligation to let you post anything you want.

It isn't "interfering with freedom of speech" to stop people from suppressing free speech.

And shutting down Infowards isn't an example of *freedom of speech* lolol.It's an example of suppressing free speech.
Which of course, our government is obligated to protect.


You people are funny.

Why do you believe that our government is obligated to protect the speech of anyone- including racists like Infowars?

 

[flacaltenn]

Threads like this are why I pretty much never take Republicans seriously when they pretend to be libertarians.

The "conservative" side on the NFL football drama was that PRIVATE enterprise has a DEFINITE legal means to impose restraints on speech. Barring that being effective -- the GOVT or the mighty Orange Tweetster should get involved. But in THIS CASE -- they DENY that private enterprise CAN impose limits on speech and behavior and STILL call for govt intervention.

Meanwhile -- on "the left" in the NFL football squabble they screamed that private enterprise work rules were TRUMPED (LOL) by 1st amendment power and relied on GOVT to uphold the rights of players. In THIS CASE, the left says Private Enterprise can do anything they want to control speech/behavior on a private platform. But in TOTAL -- they probably WOULD be in favor of govt intervention to HELP the process of ridding their political lives from any opposing content or opinion.

So the score is BOTH SIDES switched sides on what private enterprise can do with regards to speech and behavior -- And BOTH SIDES are prone to running to Govt to solve both these issues.

So DBlack -- That's WHY there IS a Libertarian Party and why we've been proven correct on MOST issues before most of the tribal warriors will ACCEPT that we were always right.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Govt is not supposed to make law that regulates speech. Period. Both sides here are inconsistent on the issue of PRIVATE enterprise controlling speech. It's their right. It's their right to ask you to wear a Wiener outfit if they want to.

The hypocrisy from both sides can CLEARLY been seen when you compare WHO was outraged by Football Players violating the RULES of their business time behavior and calling it speech --- to the folks who now are calling for freaking GOVT to intervene in moderating Facebook and Twitter.

From my great seat -- high ABOVE the 50 yard line -- it APPEARS both teams switched uniforms on what PRIVATE enterprise can do with respect to free speech. It's HILARIOUS -- but it doesn't bode well for my country. Because NO ONE is a true Civil Libertarian anymore that are Repub/Demo BattleBots.

OTHERWISE -- they'd SEE the massive inconsistencies in how they are reacting to issues and hopefully be totally embarrased into thinking through what they ACTUALLY stand for. You might even have to take some time off from the tribal wars to PONDER you're commitment to playing offense/defense games and changing jerseys every time possession of outrage changes.

What football players "violated the RULES of their business time behavior"?

 

[WillowTree]

Yes, it can be compelled.

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

Another lie.

Our constitution absolutely provides for our government protecting our freedom of speech.

In fact, that is specifically and almost exclusively what our government is charged with.

No- sorry- the Bill of Rights says that Government cannot interfere with our freedom of speech.

It doesn't say that the government must protect your 'freedom of speech' on private platforms.

Certainly it doesn't say that either Infowars or Facebook have any obligation to let you post anything you want.

It isn't "interfering with freedom of speech" to stop people from suppressing free speech.

And shutting down Infowards isn't an example of *freedom of speech* lolol.It's an example of suppressing free speech.
Which of course, our government is obligated to protect.


You people are funny.

Why do you believe that our government is obligated to protect the speech of anyone- including racists like Infowars?

OMG!