K9Buck
Platinum Member
- Dec 25, 2009
- 15,907
- 6,522
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed...
A point not in dispute. Try to stick to the topic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed...
The problem with this analogy is that the internet is infinite – there are ample opportunities for all voices to be heard; nothing is being ‘censored,’ no viewpoints are being ‘silenced.’Really? I don't think so. I'm saying it's not fair to take away property rights.You are accusing fairness with legality.
I meant to say you are -confusing- fairness with legality, but I think you got what I was trying to say. Anyway, there can be problem with property rights when a select few have most of the property. Reminds me of a line from Thomas Jefferson in regards to money:
"
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
"
Source:
Thomas Jefferson Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog
Quotation by Thomas Jefferson: If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their...quotes.liberty-tree.ca
True.How can a private entity be unjust in regards to what it wants/permits on its platform? Have the laws of private property been held in abeyance?And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.
You are confusing fairness with legality. They are not the same thing.
And however ‘unfair’ one might perceive how a private media entity might edit its content, how it might edit its content neither constitutes ‘censorship’ nor ‘violates’ free speech – where free speech is the sole purview of the law.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private entities such as social media platforms.
Politicalchic was homeschooled by people that didn't know that Hitler broke with the socialists in `1926 and purged the party of them in 1933, He killed them or put them in prison. Mussolini also started out as a socialist.
You are indeed a FOOL.
By contrast, Hitler offered an alliance between labour and capital in the form of corporatism
Hitler courted the German Industrialists and never nationalized anything.
A link where one must register to open it is as useless as a précis which gives no sources for the article's accusations.
There are two types of people, those that are of God and those that are of Satan. The Democratic Party and its supporters belong to the latter.
Whoa, I think that's far too drastic. I should probably point out that I'm generally left wing. Just listening to the audio book version of "Consequences of Capitalism", one of the authors being Noam Chomsky. I do believe in a fair amount of freedom to own guns though and I'm also against vaccines, which is something that is more associated with those on the right than the left.
Joseph Mercola is a fraud, a quack, a kook, and a slick con-artist.
Mercola is a great doctor and it is a great site that I have been going to for years.
I'm also considering buying The Truth About Covid, don't want to pre order it though, what if I pay for a pre order and it gets banned type deal. And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.
Oh. How about you start with the first one then we'll deal with them in sequence?Too much work, laugh . How about you pick a particular bullet point and we'll start with that?
“… Sanders’ … view … is in sharp contrast to his Democratic colleagues who celebrated the ban and called for more censorship. One of the leading voices of censorship in the Senate is Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) [who] chastised Big Tech for waiting so long to issue such bans: ‘The question isn’t why Facebook and Twitter acted, it’s what took so long and why haven’t others?’ …
Public Officials Call for Selective Elimination of Free SpeechDemocrats have abandoned long-held free speech values in favor of corporate censorship … When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.”
I'm also considering buying The Truth About Covid, don't want to pre order it though, what if I pay for a pre order and it gets banned type deal. And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.
Order a hard copy, not a digital book, that's my experience. They suck back out of your account (without giving the money back) digital books they decide to censor, but they can't take back a hard copy, assuming they send it in the first place. Now I'll look that one up, thanx.
There are two types of people, those that are of God and those that are of Satan. The Democratic Party and its supporters belong to the latter.
Whoa, I think that's far too drastic. I should probably point out that I'm generally left wing. Just listening to the audio book version of "Consequences of Capitalism", one of the authors being Noam Chomsky. I do believe in a fair amount of freedom to own guns though and I'm also against vaccines, which is something that is more associated with those on the right than the left.
It sounds extreme, but it's the plain truth.
Look at nearly any issue where matters of political controversy align with matters of good vs,. evil, reason vs. madness, and with very few exceptions, you'll find Democraps standing solidly on the side of evil/madness.
True.How can a private entity be unjust in regards to what it wants/permits on its platform? Have the laws of private property been held in abeyance?And yep, heard of a lot of unjust censorship on YouTube and Facebook.
You are confusing fairness with legality. They are not the same thing.
And however ‘unfair’ one might perceive how a private media entity might edit its content, how it might edit its content neither constitutes ‘censorship’ nor ‘violates’ free speech – where free speech is the sole purview of the law.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private entities such as social media platforms.
phoenyx
The problem with a national gun registry is that the corrupt federal government will use it to target and disarm law-abiding citizens.
Yeah him and Clayton both.A link where one must register to open it is as useless as a précis which gives no sources for the article's accusations.
Either way, you SUPPORT suppression of speech and truth.
A private entity ceases to be private when they gain significant and durable market power. The long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Legally that is called a monopoly. Microsoft is a good example. They limited their platform by making it difficult to run other browsers. Now we have social media like Twitter banning words from certain people they don't like and censoring content based on political views or their on interpretation of 'hate speech.'How can a private entity be unjust in regards to what it wants/permits on its platform? Have the laws of private property been held in abeyance?