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

[koshergrl]

Another double standard from the left. Try banning black people from posting on your website and see what happens.

Ok. So by small government stardards we should use the law to FORCE Facebook to allow any post?

So by law if they're attempting to restrict free speech they should be prosecuted for it.
It's a human rights violation. Prosecute it as such. Which is what should have happened to the NAZIS when they started using fake press to justify the violation of the human rights of Jews and others. If someone uses their power and their authority for the purpose of violating the rights of others, that is in and of itself a human rights violation.

 

[Toronado3800]

Another double standard from the left. Try banning black people from posting on your website and see what happens.

Ok. So by small government stardards we should use the law to FORCE Facebook to allow any post?

So by law if they're attempting to restrict free speech they should be prosecuted for it.

And of course, we all know they're restricting free speech.

No, they are forcing Facebook to allow posts.

You don't have to allow me to use a megaphone from your private property afterall. I think until we declare Facebook a monopoly and impose big government limitations on their purchases we have to give Facebook their property rights.

Otherwise we are saying Conservipedia has to allow my additions by big government mandate.

 

[koshergrl]

Another double standard from the left. Try banning black people from posting on your website and see what happens.

Ok. So by small government stardards we should use the law to FORCE Facebook to allow any post?

So by law if they're attempting to restrict free speech they should be prosecuted for it.

And of course, we all know they're restricting free speech.

No, they are forcing Facebook to allow posts.

You don't have to allow me to use a megaphone from your private property afterall. I think until we declare Facebook a monopoly and impose big government limitations on their purchases we have to give Facebook their property rights.

Otherwise we are saying Conservipedia has to allow my additions by big government mandate.

No, they are going to stop the corporations that own facebook, twitter, instagram, cnn, and google from banding together to end free speech and overthrow a duly elected president.

 

[hjmick]

No.

 

[WillowTree]

What happened to all the libtard bs about inclusiveness?

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

And they're all owned by a small handful of people working overtime to squelch free speech.

Twitter still.kets both Jones and tRump tweet, and as far as I know Jones hasn't been removed from any of the rest.

Facts matter.

Facts don't matter to you. Don't lie.

Meanwhile, the fake press is working hard to silence the real press:

Twitter says InfoWars hasn't 'violated our rules.' It looks like that's not the case

Lol, have a nice day.

 

[dblack]

The stupidity displayed in this thread is astounding. As is the hypocrisy. @koshergirl, you simply don't understand what rights are. Or, rather, you're adopting the privilege based mentality of the left, and just don't care because you think it will benefit your party.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Think of the internet as sidewalks, streets and highways, websites as homes and businesses.

Look -- I found USMB!!

 

[WillowTree]

Liberal hypocrisy, Baker must bake the damn cake, Zuckerberg can deny anyone he wants too. I think we got the picture!

 

[dblack]

Again.

It is not interfering with *free speech* to stop people from interfering with free speech.

Nobody is interfering with the *free speech* of zuckerberg, google, youtube, facebook and the like.

They, however, are interfering with the free speech of others..and therefore should be stopped.

I doesn't sound like you understand the meaning of politically protected rights like free speech. It's a prohibition on government interference. It doesn't mean other people have to listen to you. Or publish your opinions on their website. Or print them in their newspapers. It just means that government isn't allowed to interfere. Which is what you actually want it to do.

But then people have to bake cakes for you don’t they?

What???

 

[Pogo]

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"?

Go read the news man. Not fighting that battle here. You know exactly what dust-up I'm referring to. Top story on the Sports page since NFL Pre-Season started last night.

Okay, I wasn't even aware NFL preseason had started because who cares, but I must say I'm surprised at you, suggesting some kind of news happened that didn't show up on this site. We all know if a mosquito sneezes it gets three threads on USMB and if the mosquito belongs to fill-in-political-party-here it gets 27

So I did a quick search and from what I read lots of players (today apparently?) either stood, sat, locked arms, stayed off the field, or whatever. Clearly a protest against the proposed policy which is what you must be alluding to here. But the same article notes that the NFL had already suspended that policy, which means there can be no such "violation".

But more to the point ---- kneeling, sitting, raising fists, walking off etc can't be defined as "speech". If there's "speech" involved it's the NFL dictating a body posture attitude in an exercise totally outside the sport they're all there for. So what the players noted are doing is refusing to engage in said "speech". Whelp, refusing to murmur some platitude, verbally or physically, isn't "speaking". It's resisting, which is a totally different thing.

I see Rump still has a hard-on for the NFL from his daze of crashing the USFL plane but that's for a thread somewhere else another time, where we can all proceed to remake all the points we all made a year ago and change zero minds.

 

[S.J.]

Zuckerberg does not apply the rules of his forum equally. He censors political speech by conservatives and does not censor political speech by leftists, including speech calling for violence against Republicans. He is using his website to influence the outcome of elections and promote violence against people with whom he disagrees politically. I believe this is called skirting the law.

 

[FA_Q2]

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!

Is that the sort of substantive response you are supposed to make in the CDZ?

If you believe that our government is obligated to protect the speech of anyone and everyone- please explain why you think so.

Since it does not seem that Kosher is able to give you a response here I will.

The entire purpose of the government is to protect our rights. That is what the government is there for - free speech, IMHO, being the chief and most important right among them.

Under the Bill of Rights the government is forbidden from interfering in our freedom of speech.

True. Because it is a right that warrants such protection.

That doesn't mean that the government has any obligation- or even authority- to tell the New York Times that they must print opinion pieces from the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Also true because that is not an example of protecting speech. Rather, that is an example of violating property rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

The stupidity displayed in this thread is astounding. As is the hypocrisy. @koshergirl, you simply don't understand what rights are. Or, rather, you're adopting the privilege based mentality of the left, and just don't care because you think it will benefit your party.

I would not call it astounding as much as I would call it predictable. Awhile back, before the reorganization of the website here, I started a thread looking at what justification people had for their seemingly incompatible positions and found that the left and right here have eerily similar justifications for what they want government to be involved in. Specifically, it seems that both sides of the political zealots really do think that government should define and enforce morality. This is what they twisted position leads to - the justification that the government can and should do anything in it pursuit of ensuring everyone is doing what is 'right.'

The right claims to be on the side of small government and rights. Every single day I see that idea slaughtered in positions like the ones here where property rights suddenly become inconvenient because those property owners are not 'doing the right thing' with their property.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

They do have competition. 15 years ago you would be stating the same thing abut Myspace. How monolithic they are is irrelevant though because not one of these sources or even the lot of them control speech. You can still establish a website and post whatever you want. You can send out flyers, make a speech, run a protest or any one of a million other forms of speech. Just because FB is not doing what you want them to do does not negate property rights. Further, expanding government on that level, aside from directly violating the first amendment as that would be a law abridging the speech of FB, clearly violates the rights of the owners of FB.

The simple reality here is that you can easily solve this problem - stop using the services in question. Competition will arise to take in your business. Crying for big government to do it for you is childish. My 3 year old even knows that she cannot force her brother to play with her even though she really wants to. Why is it so hard for damn near the whole republican party to understand they cannot force FB to broadcast their message.

You know what is really interesting though - this is no different at all from the 'fairness' doctrine that the left was pushing several years ago. Of course the right was up in arms about it. Why did you not support the fairness doctrine if you actually believe what you are stating here?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Bingo - once again showing there is little light between the left and right. They have the same reasoning and same 'respect' for others rights. The difference is in which positions and rights they care about.

Unfortunately, neither side likes the first amendment in almost any capacity.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Well said.

I think the problem is in an utter lack of core values though rather than one thing being more important than the other. I find a sad lack of true core values in either party.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Zuckerberg does not apply the rules of his forum equally. He censors political speech by conservatives and does not censor political speech by leftists, including speech calling for violence against Republicans. He is using his website to influence the outcome of elections and promote violence against people with whom he disagrees politically. I believe this is called skirting the law.

In spite of this being well known, he'll make millions (if not billions) this year alone off of apathetic right wingers who just can't live without their daily FarceBook fix

The further away from REAL sacrifice and suffering each generation gets, the more freely they throw away their freedom. means nothing to them because they grew up in a "Taking Freedom for Granted" generation.

But throughout history, freedom has been the exception rather than the rule.
Not sure if it'll be this generation, but I'm certain it won't be long on our current trajectory until a lot of people will learn the hard way again what freedom is worth.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

I don't think the "fake news" thing is an attempt to shut anyone down. Simply to point that they are NOW more political advocacy groups than media. Removing folks and sanctioning folks in the WH press corps aint a NEW thing. Why do you think the same people are always in the front row. There's a LOT of pagentry and protocol in that tiny bland Kindergarten classroom. LOL...

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Google+, I'm sure there are tons more.

And they're all owned by a small handful of people working overtime to squelch free speech.

And CNN is actively communicating with twitter trying to get them to shut down free speech so that our country will be forced to use cnn as a mouthpiece. In their dream world, every bit of information is filtered through Acosta.

Other ways to make the display of force against those new orgs - turned into political advocacy groups (if that's your goal). For instance -- perhaps they should be treated as political advocacy groups and subject to PAC and Super Pac laws. The "test" for that though would be controversial. Upside for them might be they can claim "tax exempt status" by telling the truth of their mission. But they can't be paying much in taxes if they are money losers like the newspapers.

The WashPo is just a trolling toy for a Billionaire. One that has a personal beef with another Billionaire that happens to be the Prez right now. And he would blow up their business and reputation to accomplish a resistance and political vendetta.