How are we going to stop the liberal war on free speech and conservative voices?

[dblack]

Sure, we can mix private and public concerns. Sort of the worst of both worlds. I'd rather avoid such corruption. If you want government to take over Facebook, then do it. Otherwise, lay off the arm-twisting.

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

 

[martybegan]

How is it arm twisting to give them the cover of a requirement to be content-neutral when deciding their posting policies?

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

 

[dblack]

Well, first of all, "cover a requirement" is a detestable copout. Right up there with "just doing my job".

The commons justification is laughable. All it means is Facebook (Google, Twitter, take your pick...) is making a lot of money and Congress wants their cut.

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

"We"?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

Yeah. I can't even see the 'L' anymore.

 

[martybegan]

What would following the 1st amendment cost facebook above and beyond its normal costs, and how would congress somehow get a cut of it?

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

"We"?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

Yeah. I can't even see the 'l' anymore.

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

 

[dblack]

I don't know if I can emphasize this enough, but the message seems to be getting lost - Facebook isn't bound by the First Amendment. And they should't be. The point of the First is to protect free speech, not squash it.

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

"We"?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

Yeah. I can't even see the 'l' anymore.

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

Using government to bully Facebook is classic progressivism. Not sure how you steer around that.

 

[mdk]

Apparently only bakers and photographers have a right to associate.

 

[martybegan]

And how is facebook silencing one side of the political spectrum under it's supposed "open" forum protecting free speech?

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.

They are the biggest game in town, and to me create a digital commons that requires new ways of interpreting 1st amendment protections.

You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

"We"?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

Yeah. I can't even see the 'l' anymore.

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

Using government to bully Facebook is classic progressivism. Not sure how you steer around that.

How is making them follow the 1st amendment bullying them?

 

[martybegan]

Apparently only bakers and photographers have a right to associate.

There is a difference between applying PA laws to a non-essential, easily replaceable service or good, and saying that a social media platform that purports to be a neutral site for people to interact should be a champion of free speech.

 

[mdk]

Apparently only bakers and photographers have a right to associate.

There is a difference between applying PA laws to a non-essential, easily replaceable service or good, and saying that a social media platform that purports to be a neutral site for people to interact should be a champion of free speech.

Whether or not Facebook, Twitter, and, YouTube wants to champions of free speech is entirely up to them. Why should they be forced to host anyone on their platform aganist their wishes? We don't need the government intervening as a free market solution already exists: Disable your accounts, log off, and, never return. They will change their business practices accordingly if enough people do so.

 

[dblack]

It's not. It's not Facebook's job to protect free speech.
You realize this is the classic socialist wedge, right? And it's working. They are, in the public zeitgeist, piece-by-piece, converting rights into privileges distributed by the state.

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

"We"?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

Yeah. I can't even see the 'l' anymore.

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

Using government to bully Facebook is classic progressivism. Not sure how you steer around that.

How is making them follow the 1st amendment bullying them?

Facebook is already "following" the 1st Amendment. Let's look:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All Facebook has to do to abide by the 1st Amendment is not be Congress, and not make laws abridging freedom of speech. Since Facebook isn't Congress, and it can neither make nor enforce laws, it's literally impossible for them to violate the First Amendment.

And this isn't just a legal 'technicality'. It's vital to understanding constitutionally limited government. The First Amendment is not a law. It's a restriction on government.

Again, this is why I never vote Republican. No matter how big or small their 'L' is, they really just don't get it.

 

[deanrd]

It's coming.
Trump didn't become a billionaire by letting people walk all over him. He's got something along the lines of the Corleone Baptism: it's going to be brutal and all-inclusive

I hope you're right.....but there's a saying...."You can't beat City Hall" (in this case,referring to the Radical and powerful Left elitist class controlling Mueller etc)

Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Republicans yet controlled by Democrats.

Do you realize how fucking stupid your post is?

I know, right?

 

[deanrd]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Typical Trumpette. Is sooooooooooo afraid he might lose his "right" to spew bigoted hate speech.

You dipsticks want to freedom top spew your bullshit but those opposing must STFU.

Please point to the bigoted & hate speech by Diamond & Silk


I'll wait......

If you support someone who spews hate speech, then by proxy, you promote hate speech.

It's so obvious. Who doesn't see that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Imagine if mail/package delivery services refused to deliver liberal mail. Or if AT&T refused to allow conservatives to send text messages.

 

[dblack]

Imagine if mail/package delivery services refused to deliver liberal mail. Or if AT&T refused to allow conservatives to send text messages.

Or a baker refused to bake gay cakes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look at it this way: he's intimidated North Korea, China and now Russia. You really think pussyhat Progressives are going to beat him?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From colleges to YouTube and now Diamond & Silk on Facebook.
Facebook to Diamond and Silk: Your content, brand ‘dangerous to the community’

Two conservative black women being targeted as a "danger to the community"

Seriously? Gtfo with this stupidity. They only thing they are a danger to is your oppression of conservative voices.

This shit has to be put to bed. Further segmenting our society & suppressing their voice is not the way you win a political debate.
Challenge them, argue with them, present them with an opposing view but to just outright silence them?

Just proves to me that the left are increasingly alarmed that their grasp on the media & their ability to force the conversation in a certain direction are under threat. They are clearly scared to death of free speech.

Typical Trumpette. Is sooooooooooo afraid he might lose his "right" to spew bigoted hate speech.

You dipsticks want to freedom top spew your bullshit but those opposing must STFU.

Please point to the bigoted & hate speech by Diamond & Silk


I'll wait......

If you support someone who spews hate speech, then by proxy, you promote hate speech.

It's so obvious. Who doesn't see that?

Please explain the hate spewed by Diamond and Silk, 2 non-liberal black women

 

[martybegan]

So you will proudly stand by your principles as the left changes public opinion by silencing non-progressives via media platforms, and then bitch when we lose elections over and over?

"We"?

There is no socialism involved here. There is regulating something that for all intents and purposes SHOULD be told by government to be neutral as per the 1st amendment.

Yeah. I can't even see the 'l' anymore.

When progressives win, we lose.

Or maybe you're one of those people hoping for a 2nd American Civil War.

Using government to bully Facebook is classic progressivism. Not sure how you steer around that.

How is making them follow the 1st amendment bullying them?

Facebook is already "following" the 1st Amendment. Let's look:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All Facebook has to do to abide by the 1st Amendment is not be Congress, and not make laws abridging freedom of speech. Since Facebook isn't Congress, and it can neither make nor enforce laws, it's literally impossible for them to violate the First Amendment.

And this isn't just a legal 'technicality'. It's vital to understanding constitutionally limited government. The First Amendment is not a law. It's a restriction on government.

Again, this is why I never vote Republican. No matter how big or small their 'L' is, they really just don't get it.

Yes, I get the basics of it, but you ignore the impact of technology as well as the commons like nature of the internet, and more accurately large social media platforms.

 

[martybegan]

Apparently only bakers and photographers have a right to associate.

There is a difference between applying PA laws to a non-essential, easily replaceable service or good, and saying that a social media platform that purports to be a neutral site for people to interact should be a champion of free speech.

Whether or not Facebook, Twitter, and, YouTube wants to champions of free speech is entirely up to them. Why should they be forced to host anyone on their platform aganist their wishes? We don't need the government intervening as a free market solution already exists: Disable your accounts, log off, and, never return. They will change their business practices accordingly if enough people do so.

or the progressive left will have no voices in opposition and then take over via apathy from the right.

Fine, if they want to play political oppressor then they have to be required to state that publicly, and have concrete rules for who they will de-platform.

 

[Dschrute3]

Very disturbing what they did to those women. A 'Danger to the Community?' They were banned for simply being Pro-Trump. It's why i've been warning folks about Communists/Democrats for years. Absolute control is their goal. They wanna destroy the Constitution. They're dangerous Authoritarians, leading us to Totalitarianism. Americans better understand what's going on.

No, what’s disturbing is the ignorance and stupidity of your post – and that most conservatives are just as ignorant and stupid.

Useful Idiot.

 

[mdk]

or the progressive left will have no voices in opposition and then take over via apathy from the right.

Fine, if they want to play political oppressor then they have to be required to state that publicly, and have concrete rules for who they will de-platform.

Sounds good to me. The free market will decide their fate.