HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech

[bripat9643]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.

If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.

If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.

Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."

Posts criticizng BLM aren't being taken down. Posts calling them a "terrorist organization" and claiming that BLM is responsible for the riots which are the result of the President's actions, and lying about BLM, goes beyond "criticize", and is an incitement to violence. Incitements to violence violate user agreements with both Facebook and Twitter.

You're wrong about that. That's truth, not hate. "Hate" is just a word SJWs use to refer to truth that they don't like.

 

[Richard-H]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.

If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.

If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.

Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."

It may or may not be. If it's clearly false or malicious, it should be blocked. If it's just an opinion stated in a way that's not malicious then it should not be blocked.

But since you Trumpbots live in a world of lies, I doubt you have the ability to differentiate between reality and lies.

You've adopted a sick psychology of believing whatever you want to believe without regard for truth or reality.

 

[bripat9643]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

It is also an in-kind donation to the Democratic Party. Therefore in violation of campaign finance laws.

So you're in favour of Republicans lying to cover up their incompetence and failure? The video's that are being "censored" are promoting lies, and conspiracy theories as fact, and then trying to slap the seal of the President of the United States on this bullshit and claim "free speech". 1500 Americans are dying every day as a result of their policies, and the President is trying to cancel the election, and YOU'RE crying "censorship".

Everything you post is a lie. Shouldn't all your posts be yanked?

Evidence, Links? Facts. A lying Trump cultist is not a credible source. If you could refute what I post, you would do it. Calling someone a liar, isn't enough Finger Boi, you have to prove it. Every day I post proof that your posts are bullshit, and every day you call me a liar.

Your moronic posts are the evidence. Your lies have been pointed out time and time again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

Both Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Mastercakes offered the attackers cakes. Both refused to DECORATE them to promote homosexuality.

You GRASP that SCOTUS ruled AGAINST you, right?

 

[bripat9643]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.

If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.

If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.

Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."

It may or may not be. If it's clearly false or malicious, it should be blocked. If it's just an opinion stated in a way that's malicious then it should not be blocked.

But since you Trumpbots live in a world of lies, I doubt you have the ability to differentiate between reality and lies.

You've adopted a sick psychology of believing whatever you want to believe without regard for truth or reality.

Your belief that you have the ability to differentiate between reality and lies is utterly hilarious.

 

[Richard-H]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

When posts are obviously false or obviously hateful, they certainly should delete them at their discretion.

The problem with you Trump idiots is that you believe your own BULLSHIT!

PITIFUL!!!

Nope. "False" and "hateful" are most often just a matter of opinion.

Reality is something beyond your comprehension.

I say BLM is a Marxist terrorist organization. Is that "hate speech?"

It is a false accusation. Your opinion on the matter is baseless.

Since most people couldn't care less what you think of BLM, it shouldn't be censored - all that it proves is that you're an idiot. However, if you post false information to try to support that opinion it should be censored.

 

[bripat9643]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.

If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.

If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.

Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."

Posts criticizng BLM aren't being taken down. Posts calling them a "terrorist organization" and claiming that BLM is responsible for the riots which are the result of the President's actions, and lying about BLM, goes beyond "criticize", and is an incitement to violence. Incitements to violence violate user agreements with both Facebook and Twitter.

In other words, posts criticizing BLM are being taken down.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you're in favour of Republicans lying to cover up their incompetence and failure? The video's that are being "censored" are promoting lies, and conspiracy theories as fact, and then trying to slap the seal of the President of the United States on this bullshit and claim "free speech". 1500 Americans are dying every day as a result of their policies, and the President is trying to cancel the election, and YOU'RE crying "censorship".

Are you a medical doctor?

The 17 people in the video are.

So we have political hacks like you, along with publishers like Twitter saying that you have more medical expertise than doctors do?

How is Twitter any different than Communist China? Both censor medical professionals who speak against the official narrative.

 

[bripat9643]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

Is calling "FIRE!" in a crowded auditorium censorship?
Or shouting "BOMB" IN an airplane?I
Free speech cannot cause damage or injury to others.
Fake news and outright lies are damaging to rational communications, especially when ignorant people like you are involved.

No.

But banning people on a platform for having the wrong opinion IS internet censorship.

You conflate it to shouting bomb in an airplane because your have a very, very low IQ.

No. This social media sites are privately owned and can choose what they allow up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

It is not internet censorship since anyone that is censored can open their own social media site and post whatever they'd like - up to the point of anything that would be damaging to the American people - like fake news and out right false information posed as correct information. In other words the entire portfolio of Conservative opinions.

They are government protected monopolies. What is "damaging to society" shouldn't be left up to them. I think liberalism is damaging to society. You only proved why the government should regulate them.

When posts are obviously false or obviously hateful, they certainly should delete them at their discretion.

The problem with you Trump idiots is that you believe your own BULLSHIT!

PITIFUL!!!

Nope. "False" and "hateful" are most often just a matter of opinion.

Reality is something beyond your comprehension.

I say BLM is a Marxist terrorist organization. Is that "hate speech?"

It is a false accusation. Your opinion on the matter is baseless.

Since most people couldn't care less what you think of BLM, it shouldn't be censored - all that it proves is that you're an idiot. However, if you post false information to try to support that opinion it should be censored.

Prove it's a false accusation.

 

[Dragonlady]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

No it's not. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over. If you want to legally discriminate, you have to have a private club, charge membership, and not invite the public to do business with you. The moment you invite the public in, you have to abide by the Public Accommodations Act.

That's even in the Bible. Jesus told his followers to obey the laws of your land. His realm is spiritual not political.

 

[bripat9643]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

No it's not. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over. If you want to legally discriminate, you have to have a private club, charge membership, and not invite the public to do business with you. The moment you invite the public in, you have to abide by the Public Accommodations Act.

That's even in the Bible. Jesus told his followers to obey the laws of your land. His realm is spiritual not political.

It's based on a ruling by a Supreme Court that was packed by FDR. It was wrong from the beginning.

Don't tell me what the law says. That's how I know it's wrong.

 

[Dragonlady]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.

If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.

If you knew anything about networks you would know these filters are not 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. But as long as they do their 'due diligence' by running filtering software, their responsibility is satisfied.

Blocking posts that criticize BLM is not "due dilligence," nor is it "hate speech."

Posts criticizng BLM aren't being taken down. Posts calling them a "terrorist organization" and claiming that BLM is responsible for the riots which are the result of the President's actions, and lying about BLM, goes beyond "criticize", and is an incitement to violence. Incitements to violence violate user agreements with both Facebook and Twitter.

In other words, posts criticizing BLM are being taken down.

No, posts LYING ABOUT AND SLANDERING Black Lives Matter, are being taken down.

You're the guy who is always claiming people lie about Trump and that the "Fake News" shouldn't be allowed to lie about Trump. Yet you're good with Trump lying about BLM.

The problem for you is that the Mainstream Media isn't lying about Trump. FOX News, Breitbart, and Sinclair Media are lying about Trump. Nobody is making them take down their lies, so you can go back to your bubble and keep pretending Trump isn't a danger to the country and the world, but the rest of us aren't that gullible or stupid.

The Mainstream Media let Trump lie his way into the White House in 2016, and didn't call him on his lies. The American people trusted him once. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Shame on you FingerBoi, Shame on you.

 

[Dragonlady]

They CAN ban if people violate their ToS, and regardless they ARE private entities. Even publishers like the media are not required to publish everything. They pick and choose.

Can bakers refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding?

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

That law is pure idiocy and unconstitutional. The commerce clause does not give the federal government to run every business in the United States.

No it's not. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over. If you want to legally discriminate, you have to have a private club, charge membership, and not invite the public to do business with you. The moment you invite the public in, you have to abide by the Public Accommodations Act.

That's even in the Bible. Jesus told his followers to obey the laws of your land. His realm is spiritual not political.

It's based on a ruling by a Supreme Court that was packed by FDR. It was wrong from the beginning.

Don't tell me what the law says. That's how I know it's wrong.

Don't confuse you with truth, facts or information. You mind is closed. How's that's been working for you so far, FingerBoi?

 

[Levant]

You are the one who is mistaken. The platform has every right to censor material they find objectionable. Free speech rights bind the government not private entities.

They cannot refuse to bake a cake. They are a public accomodation. I don't necessarily believe they have to bake a wedding cake but they have to bake a cake.

Do you see what's wrong with those two posts? Seriously, just how stupid are you? At least if you're going to make two completely opposite claims, proving that you and the truth, and that you and ethics, are not even acquainted, let alone friends, then be smart enough to separate the two with a response or two from someone else so your two opposite claims aren't posts 294 and 295.

 

[Levant]

I doubt any of these allow child porno on their sites, but I wouldn't know...

I guess you'd know all the child porno sites, right?

Your ignorance is showing. But that's expected from the left; you deal from emotions and not knowledge or facts.

Let"s say that you are an Internet service provider. One of your customers uses your service to download child pornography. In the process of downloading, that pornography passes through your servers and is now stored in the cache of your servers. The FBI raids your customer's house and confiscates his computer. They start tracing back on the child porn and see that the network connection upstream to your customer points back to you. The FBI raids your facility and confiscates your servers. Not only do they find child pornography on your servers but they find proof that you delivered that pornography to your customer.... Guess what? You're going to prison for a long time... Except that you're actually not. There are laws that protect you because you're not the content provider; you are a service provider.

In another example, let's say that you are a company that functions as a file-sharing service, a mini-Dropbox, for example. You don't even own your own servers; you simply use a hosting service, rent some online disk storage, and wrote some software and now you're making money by letting people post files online and share them. Most of your customers are storing pictures of their kids or maybe some spreadsheets for work.. But then there's that one customer and now you're going to prison for running a business that hosts child pornography... Except, once again, you're not. There's a law that protects you as a service provider and not a content provider.

In both cases, and in the law, if you're a content provider, even if you didn't provide that exact content, then you don't qualify for the legal exemption. And, in both cases, the service provider must take reasonable steps to eliminate or prevent illegal content and, if they do take reasonable steps, the exception applies to them.

Facebook and the other social media companies enjoy that exception to the law. But if they become content providers by adding or removing legal content, changing the nature of the legal discussion or content, then they are content providers. If they are content providers then their specific, explicit, special, exception needs to be removed. With that exception removed, when someone posts child pornography on their sites, they're liable. When someone posts calls to action to break the law, any law - including sedition, rioting, arson, or overthrow of government, then they are liable. They need to be shut down just like any other person would be for making explicit calls to action to violate the law.

Thanks for your incredibly hypothetical and ignorant post.

If you knew anything about managing networks, you'd know that virtually every company runs filtering software that identifies and blocks porn - except for porno sites.

I know more about networks than you do. I managed networks for a living for over a decade. I have done network security and protection for longer than that. Pornography gets sent around and not blocked all the time. If child pornography could blocked then ISPs would simply stop it and no one would ever have access to it through the Internet and our children would be more safe and our jails would be more empty. So, speaking of ignorant, no.. idiotic, posts.. That describes yours, not mine.

 

[Levant]

Evidence, Links? Facts. A lying Trump cultist is not a credible source. If you could refute what I post, you would do it. Calling someone a liar, isn't enough Finger Boi, you have to prove it. Every day I post proof that your posts are bullshit, and every day you call me a liar.

Most of your posts are generalizations without refutable details. That's what most posts from the left are. Trump bad. Trump racist. Trump orange. Orange bad.

 

[dblack]

Facebook Twitter and Google live in a twilight world in between public entity and government agency.

Uh huh... that's the soft sell we always hear from socialists when they want to nationalize an industry.

The spirit of the Constitution was there to prevent an aggregation of unreasonable power in the hands of anyone given group of people.

Nope. Your socialist fantasies notwithstanding, the spirit of the Constitution was to prevent unreasonable power for government.

Eventually enough legal opinions will be written on the matter to demonstrate that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as de facto government agencies in their own right by virtue of their size and market control. Trust me this is coming.

Most likely. This is exactly why I say Trump is hastening our descent into socialism. While the deplorables cheer.

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

Fascinating. So, do you think every business that expresses political opinions should be nationalized? Or just those you don't agree with?

You have it exactly backwards. Like it or not responsibility is contagious when people take liberty with their boundaries. When the preacher of a congregation stands up in front of his people and advocates for a certain candidate he is giving up the separation of church and state and assuming the mantle of government regulated activism.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The First Amendment doesn't say churches can't express political opinions. And a church, or business or anyone else, who expresses political opinions isn't assuming "the mantle of government regulation", as much as some leaders would like it to be the case. Do you seriously think government should regulate anyone who speaks out on politics? What kind of totalitarian state are you dreaming of?

 

[justoffal]

Facebook Twitter and Google live in a twilight world in between public entity and government agency.

Uh huh... that's the soft sell we always hear from socialists when they want to nationalize an industry.

The spirit of the Constitution was there to prevent an aggregation of unreasonable power in the hands of anyone given group of people.

Nope. Your socialist fantasies notwithstanding, the spirit of the Constitution was to prevent unreasonable power for government.

Eventually enough legal opinions will be written on the matter to demonstrate that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as de facto government agencies in their own right by virtue of their size and market control. Trust me this is coming.

Most likely. This is exactly why I say Trump is hastening our descent into socialism. While the deplorables cheer.

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

Fascinating. So, do you think every business that expresses political opinions should be nationalized? Or just those you don't agree with?

You have it exactly backwards. Like it or not responsibility is contagious when people take liberty with their boundaries. When the preacher of a congregation stands up in front of his people and advocates for a certain candidate he is giving up the separation of church and state and assuming the mantle of government regulated activism.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The First Amendment doesn't say churches can't express political opinions. And a church, or business or anyone else, who expresses political opinions isn't assuming "the mantle of government regulation", as much as some leaders would like it to be the case. Do you seriously think government should regulate anyone who speaks out on politics? What kind of totalitarian state are you dreaming of?

Separation speaks for itself.

Christian Baker's are totalitarians
or is it the gay customers who are?

If a private company is granted a business license by the Federal Government.....IE: FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, TWITTER..... they in effect agree to the terms imposed to keep that license which is already totalitarian in nature.
You have missed the boat by about 300 years.

Jo

 

[dblack]

Facebook Twitter and Google live in a twilight world in between public entity and government agency.

Uh huh... that's the soft sell we always hear from socialists when they want to nationalize an industry.

The spirit of the Constitution was there to prevent an aggregation of unreasonable power in the hands of anyone given group of people.

Nope. Your socialist fantasies notwithstanding, the spirit of the Constitution was to prevent unreasonable power for government.

Eventually enough legal opinions will be written on the matter to demonstrate that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as de facto government agencies in their own right by virtue of their size and market control. Trust me this is coming.

Most likely. This is exactly why I say Trump is hastening our descent into socialism. While the deplorables cheer.

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

Fascinating. So, do you think every business that expresses political opinions should be nationalized? Or just those you don't agree with?

You have it exactly backwards. Like it or not responsibility is contagious when people take liberty with their boundaries. When the preacher of a congregation stands up in front of his people and advocates for a certain candidate he is giving up the separation of church and state and assuming the mantle of government regulated activism.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The First Amendment doesn't say churches can't express political opinions. And a church, or business or anyone else, who expresses political opinions isn't assuming "the mantle of government regulation", as much as some leaders would like it to be the case. Do you seriously think government should regulate anyone who speaks out on politics? What kind of totalitarian state are you dreaming of?

Separation speaks for itself.

The First Amendment speaks for itself. Try reading it.

Christian Baker's are totalitarians
or is it the gay customers who are?

What??

If a private company is granted a business license by the Federal Government.....IE: FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, TWITTER..... they in effect agree to the terms imposed to keep that license which is already totalitarian in nature.
You have missed the boat by about 300 years.

Nope. I'm looking to the future. And I don't want the kind of overbearing government you long for.

 

[justoffal]

Facebook Twitter and Google live in a twilight world in between public entity and government agency.

Uh huh... that's the soft sell we always hear from socialists when they want to nationalize an industry.

The spirit of the Constitution was there to prevent an aggregation of unreasonable power in the hands of anyone given group of people.

Nope. Your socialist fantasies notwithstanding, the spirit of the Constitution was to prevent unreasonable power for government.

Eventually enough legal opinions will be written on the matter to demonstrate that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter qualify as de facto government agencies in their own right by virtue of their size and market control. Trust me this is coming.

Most likely. This is exactly why I say Trump is hastening our descent into socialism. While the deplorables cheer.

The industry has nationalized itself by virtue of its insertion into politics.

Fascinating. So, do you think every business that expresses political opinions should be nationalized? Or just those you don't agree with?

You have it exactly backwards. Like it or not responsibility is contagious when people take liberty with their boundaries. When the preacher of a congregation stands up in front of his people and advocates for a certain candidate he is giving up the separation of church and state and assuming the mantle of government regulated activism.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The First Amendment doesn't say churches can't express political opinions. And a church, or business or anyone else, who expresses political opinions isn't assuming "the mantle of government regulation", as much as some leaders would like it to be the case. Do you seriously think government should regulate anyone who speaks out on politics? What kind of totalitarian state are you dreaming of?

Separation speaks for itself.

The First Amendment speaks for itself. Try reading it.

Christian Baker's are totalitarians
or is it the gay customers who are?

What??

If a private company is granted a business license by the Federal Government.....IE: FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, TWITTER..... they in effect agree to the terms imposed to keep that license which is already totalitarian in nature.
You have missed the boat by about 300 years.

Nope. I'm looking to the future. And I don't want the kind of overbearing government you long for.

This is not about me..... This is about equal Access. This is the future....
Monopolistic corporate giants have usurped the role of Governance by virtue of their insertion into politics.
Like I said already the legal opinions are even now building a long overdue bridge to the virtual world.

Overbearing? Are you kidding me?
Facebook is overbearing in their censorship of Christianity, conservatism and standard traditional values. Google and Twitter likewise.....you take solace in the the imagined protection they have as privateers however they have surrendered that protection by virtue of their successful cornering of their respective markets and choosing to dictate the content rather than simply to be the platform. Once again I'm going to say that this will come from the left.....not the right. These entities are now defacto public utilities.

Jo