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

[martybegan]

Yes, he "talked" about it. I haven't seen any action.

But you have no problem with the President of the US talking about such things?

This President? Please, half the stuff coming out of his mouth is blowhard fluff, either intentional to set off his opponents, unintentional because he IS a blowhard, or a combination of the two.

Get back to me when he starts actually trying to implement things like this.

It's just like the trade Tariffs, everyone threw a fit when he just SAID he was going to do it, and now all of a sudden China feels like talking about things.

I do not think giving someone a free pass just because they are a blowhard is a good path to go down,

Not a free pass, but a pause to wait until some actual action is initiated.

Very often the threat of such a thing is enough to squelch free speech...as you noted his words seem to bring about actions by others.

It hasn't seemed to squelch anything with the MSM.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Perhaps what is needed is for some groups to form a few conservative versions of Facebook.

Would it keep out of bankrupcy?

 

[hadit]

Youtube isn't a government program. They are free to allow or disallow what ever they want. Today's version of Amos and Andy are free to post anything they want, and spout whatever they want to spout. Youtube just doesn't care to help them promote it.

No one is trying to make the case that the government should censor Facebook. They are pointing out the increasingly obvious tendency of typically left wing organizations and corporations to shutdown or stifle opposing points of view and are exploring means to combat it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is always the excuse for government encroachment on free speech. Liberals are quite familiar with it as a tactic. Conservatives are learning. Libertarians have no excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a realistic view of what platforms like twitter and facebook have become.

And I'm small "l" libertarian, not "big L" so I am not opposed to government oversight, especially when said oversight is to enforce something like first amendment protections.

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

 

[martybegan]

It's not an excuse, it's a realistic view of what platforms like twitter and facebook have become.

And I'm small "l" libertarian, not "big L" so I am not opposed to government oversight, especially when said oversight is to enforce something like first amendment protections.

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

 

[Mac1958]

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

To answer the question directly, I really don't know. The Regressive Left is not going to stop trying to shut down opposing views, and since they control so much of the media, education and popular culture in general, I don't what can be done about it. I wish I could offer an idea.

This is only going to continue. These are illiberal authoritarians, they have a lot of power, and they're not playing by any rules.
.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is there such a thing as a "vanishing L libertarian"?

This IS a first amendment issue - but not like you think. Like so many of our protected liberties, the First, is being inverted into its opposite. It's the same dynamic as the "equal rights" movement. We are shifting away from conception of rights as protection from government encroachment, and toward the idea that they are an obligation for government to step in on our behalf if we feel we aren't being properly respected by others.

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

Forcing them to be content neutral, what the hell that even means, would be controlling them. That is something I cannot abide.

If we are going to err on one side or the other, it always has to be on the side of liberty not the Govt

 

[SeaGal]

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

You're tilting at windmills. Who here demands that the government control Facebook and the rest?

Speaking for myself - I believe that any private business has the right to 'refuse service'. You?

That a discussion on that refusal ensues is not the same as demanding that there 'oughta be a law'.

 

[martybegan]

Things like facebook and twitter are unique situations that the framers never imagined (unlike modern firearms, which they probably could imagine). We have created digital commons. These commons should be required to be content neutral just like any other common area involving speech.

Hell if I were facebook and twitter, I would love to be covered by the 1st, as then they couldn't be blamed for the content on the platforms they don't like, or the SJW's don't like.

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

Forcing them to be content neutral, what the hell that even means, would be controlling them. That is something I cannot abide.

If we are going to err on one side or the other, it always has to be on the side of liberty not the Govt

Having people of one particular political persuasion removed from a common platform that has taken the place of the commons in our society is not liberty.

Of course it's because people you disagree with are the ones being silenced that you are OK with it, you gutless fucking hack.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're tilting at windmills. Who here demands that the government control Facebook and the rest?

Speaking for myself - I believe that any private business has the right to 'refuse service'. You?

That a discussion on that refusal ensues is not the same as demanding that there 'oughta be a law'.

Yes I do. I think that a private business should be able to pick and choose who they serve based on anything they wish. If they wish to be all white or all black or all females...they should be allowed.

I believe that any and all anti-discrimination laws enforced against any private business are unconstitutional. The constitution tells the Fed Govt they cannot discriminate, it does not say that you and I cannot.

Furthermore, "protected classes" violate the equal protection clause because they receive more protection than other classes.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just how do you make something like Facebook "content neutral"? Where does it stop? are boards like this next? Should the Govt make sure no fake news gets posted on this forum?

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

Forcing them to be content neutral, what the hell that even means, would be controlling them. That is something I cannot abide.

If we are going to err on one side or the other, it always has to be on the side of liberty not the Govt

Having people of one particular political persuasion removed from a common platform that has taken the place of the commons in our society is not liberty.

Of course it's because people you disagree with are the ones being silenced that you are OK with it, you gutless fucking hack.

A private company should have the liberty to do as they wish. If they wish to only have Libs then they should be allowed, if they wish to only have Repubs, they should be allowed.

I disagree with you stupid partisan morons from both sides, so kiss my ass.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Think about this.....then tell me again if the Rightwing stands a shadows chance?

The Left OWNS and controls......

The Entertainment Industry (Hollywood, Disney etc)
The Social Media Industry (Facebook etc)
The Cellphone Industry (Google Android, Apple)
The Internet Search Engine Industry (Google)
The Computer and Computer software Industry (Microsoft, Intel)
The Education System
The News Media (except "maybe" Fox...but I'm not even sure about that anymore)
The Labor Industry (unions)
Now the Retail Industry (Amazon)

---- But still feels the Rightwing has FAR too much of a voice in America. ----
(And btw...ALL these Liberal companies enjoy vast cash support from Rightwingers)

(They want desperately to silence the last renegade holdout voices of the right.....Hannity, Levine and Limbaugh)

Remember when the Left used that old adage about the Rightwing being nothing more than rich, greedy white people? Seems that argument doesn't work anymore? So today, all Rightwingers are "Bigots & Racists & homophobes" etc.

Only the Left offers what young people today want. Entertainment, sex and fun) because people with Conservative values teach personal responsibility and good ethics instead....and what fun is THAT?
Am I the only one who clearly sees where we're headed?

Top 10 of Fortune 100 Companies Favored by Liberals
Source: SurveyMonkey

1. Amazon
2. Alphabet (Google)
3. Apple
4. Walt Disney
5. Microsoft
6. Target
7. Intel
8. Johnson & Johnson
9. Costco Wholesale
10. CVS Health

 

[martybegan]

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

Forcing them to be content neutral, what the hell that even means, would be controlling them. That is something I cannot abide.

If we are going to err on one side or the other, it always has to be on the side of liberty not the Govt

Having people of one particular political persuasion removed from a common platform that has taken the place of the commons in our society is not liberty.

Of course it's because people you disagree with are the ones being silenced that you are OK with it, you gutless fucking hack.

A private company should have the liberty to do as they wish. If they wish to only have Libs then they should be allowed, if they wish to only have Repubs, they should be allowed.

I disagree with you stupid partisan morons from both sides, so kiss my ass.

The problem is they don't say that out front, they claim to be an open public space, AND they give some lip service to free speech.

The problem is only one side is gunning for that ass, and you stick to your "principles" as they measure out the rope for your hanging party.

Sorry, you aren't on their side, you are worse. You are an ignorant idiot.

There is ample precedent for government to say places like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are part of a new digital commons, and thus must be beholden to the 1st amendment. Not government censors, not government content checkers, just that the 1st amendment applies and if a private citizen feels their 1st amendment rights have been violated they have recourse against such providers of the new digital commons.

 

[Votto]

Boards like this are limited in scope, and there are plenty of competing platforms.

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube claim to be open forums for all, and have shown they cannot be trusted to live by their own free speech ethos, nor can they be trusted to continue their "support" of free speech. Plus they are currently ubiquitous in our society, much like the town square or city hall steps of old used to be.

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

Forcing them to be content neutral, what the hell that even means, would be controlling them. That is something I cannot abide.

If we are going to err on one side or the other, it always has to be on the side of liberty not the Govt

Having people of one particular political persuasion removed from a common platform that has taken the place of the commons in our society is not liberty.

Of course it's because people you disagree with are the ones being silenced that you are OK with it, you gutless fucking hack.

A private company should have the liberty to do as they wish. If they wish to only have Libs then they should be allowed, if they wish to only have Repubs, they should be allowed.

I disagree with you stupid partisan morons from both sides, so kiss my ass.

What if Facebook banned their content cuz they were black?

In fact, how do we not know that was the reason?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The problem is they don't say that out front, they claim to be an open public space, AND they give some lip service to free speech.
The problem is only one side is gunning for that ass, and you stick to your "principles" as they measure out the rope for your hanging party.
Sorry, you aren't on their side, you are worse. You are an ignorant idiot.
There is ample precedent for government to say places like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are part of a new digital commons, and thus must be beholden to the 1st amendment. Not government censors, not government content checkers, just that the 1st amendment applies and if a private citizen feels their 1st amendment rights have been violated they have recourse against such providers of the new digital commons.

You should stop blaming the Left and the government. That's whining and being a snowflake.

It's RIGHTWINGERS who are feeding cash into the Left money machine every day
It's RIGHTWINGERS who are doing nothing and remaining silent while the Left organizes and hits the streets in numbers

The Right does not seem to care what happens to them....while the Left is kicking ass and taking no prisoners

 

[bendog]

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.

You still haven't figured out what the First Amend is, even after multiple posters explained it to you. Are you simply daft or a liar?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

You still haven't figured out what the First Amend is, even after multiple posters explained it to you. Are you simply daft or a liar?

I never mentioned the first amendment dumbass.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I find it ironic that the left in this thread are using the first amendment to excuse the practice of silencing conservative viewpoints.

Essentially protect the machine at the expense of the people...

 

[bendog]

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.

You still haven't figured out what the First Amend is, even after multiple posters explained it to you. Are you simply daft or a liar?

I never mentioned the first amendment dumbass.

You said a violation of free speech, cum face. Do you misunderstand that as well, or just LIE?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry, but I can never agree that the Govt should be controlling such sites as FB and the rest. It is not the first step down a slippery slope, it is the first step off of a cliff from which there is no returning.

What's next, the full implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? Will FoxNews and MSNBC be forced to give "equal" time to all points of views?

Hell, this board would fall afoul of the FD as there are far more right wing than left wing people on here

it's not controlling them, it's making them adhere to content neutral parameters, much like public universities have to.

This board isn't a part of the digital commons like facebook, twitter and youtube are. Niche boards with restrictions would still be allowed and even encouraged.

It would give those platforms the protection they need to tell the people demanding removal of opposing views to piss off.

Forcing them to be content neutral, what the hell that even means, would be controlling them. That is something I cannot abide.

If we are going to err on one side or the other, it always has to be on the side of liberty not the Govt

Having people of one particular political persuasion removed from a common platform that has taken the place of the commons in our society is not liberty.

Of course it's because people you disagree with are the ones being silenced that you are OK with it, you gutless fucking hack.

A private company should have the liberty to do as they wish. If they wish to only have Libs then they should be allowed, if they wish to only have Repubs, they should be allowed.

I disagree with you stupid partisan morons from both sides, so kiss my ass.

What if Facebook banned their content cuz they were black?

In fact, how do we not know that was the reason?

They should be allowed to do so.

Here is my position...once again...

I believe that any and all anti-discrimination laws enforced against any private business are unconstitutional. The constitution tells the Fed Govt they cannot discriminate, it does not say that you and I cannot.

Furthermore, "protected classes" violate the equal protection clause because they receive more protection than other classes.