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

[Mac1958]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

I don't see that as an argument in good faith. Requiring a company to be open about it's procedures for banning doesn't seem like a overreach at all, or some kind of hostile government take over.

The company can do as it pleases, just like Facebook. It can be as ideologically closed or biased as it wants to be. If people don't like it, there are other options, as small as they may be.

Unless and until it's officially made a utility, it can operate as it sees fit under the law, and the market will decide.

FOX and MSNBC can, too.

Funny how these supposed "constitutionalists" don't seem to understand how it actually works.

Cafeteria Christians, Cafeteria Constitutionalists, same stripe.

 

[Brain357]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

 

[Crepitus]

Censorship is fascist. Right, ANTIFA??

And it's exactly what tRump is trying to do.

Hey, they love their big, centralized government, authoritarian strongman. This is what they want.

Most of the discussion in Yesterday's hearing was about the government-provided monopoly these corporations enjoy.

This executive order is likely unconstitutional, but since when has that stopped Trump… who is mockingly doing the same thing Obama did, and he may get the SCOTUS to make that order irreversible by the next administration (5 years from now) like they did on DACA, which will be a nice big fat FUCK YOU to the establishment...which is pretty much why we have Trump in the first place.

People forget the Clinton years when he was fining Microsoft a million dollars a day for monopoly practices. Even back then I was an Apple user, and still am today. I've never once used a Microsoft product because I never needed one. It was not a monopoly at all. The real problem Bill had is that Gates was cheap as all hell. He didn't contribute to charities, politicians or political parties. He kept every dime he made for himself.

Of course he did a 180 after that. He realized that being wealthy is a pay-to-play game, and is still handing out money today to various causes and politicians.

i dont think he gives to politicians, but he does give billions to charity now...

The antitrust case against Microsoft had nothing to do with personal dislikes from the Clintons. It's was all about compatibility and browsers.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

 

[Brain357]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

 

[bripat9643]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

Do you support freedom of speech or not?

 

[Brain357]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

Do you support freedom of speech or not?

Of course.

So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

Do you support freedom of speech or not?

Of course.

So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.

If you support freedom of speech, then you support Citizens United.

 

[Brain357]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

Do you support freedom of speech or not?

Of course.

So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.

I'll take that to mean you oppose freedom of speech.

Move to Cuba.

So you don’t have a real argument? My freedom of speech hasn’t been effected. How has yours?

 

[bripat9643]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

Do you support freedom of speech or not?

Of course.

So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.

I'll take that to mean you oppose freedom of speech.

Move to Cuba.

So you don’t have a real argument? My freedom of speech hasn’t been effected. How has yours?

It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.

 

[Brain357]

Trump went even further than I expected. The SJWs will be livid.

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users' Free Speech - Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices​

​

This Is Big!​

​

On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.​

​

Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.​

​

Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.​

Trump has no power to do this. Free speech rights only apply to governments. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

A Supreme Court Decision Could Have Implications for Social Media Free Speech

The court ruled that First Amendment protections don't apply to a corporation that operates a public access channel in New York.

psmag.com

Did you read the EO? He has the authority to instruct the FCC, which is in the Executive Branch. He is not trying to impose anything on private companies. They can censor all they want, but if they do, they scan also be held liable for their content.

and what power in the constitution does the president have to do that to a private social media board? The rules and law, says they are not held liable for what posters post.... it does not say, they can not have rules or moderate, in order to get this protection.... sheesh....

create your own message board/social media site....THAT IS CAPITALISM!!!!

Are you one of the morons who opposes Citizens United?

Everyone should. Made politicians even easier to buy.

it repealed censorship, moron. No you're attacking Trump for what you call censorship.

You're an idiot.

It opened the door to buying politicians even farther. Look at how much is spent.

How could that be when all it did was repeal part of McCain-Feingold?

As H.L Mencken once said "an election is a present auction on future goods." Politicians have always sold themselves to the highest bidder.

Ten Years After Citizens United - Public Citizen

A huge change happened on Jan. 21, 2010, with the Citizens United ruling. Here are 9 ways the case has eroded democracy and 1 place where it's helped.

www.citizen.org

What you're saying is that democracy is incompatible with freedom of speech.

The negative effects from the ruling are clear. You are just too stupid it seems.

So you're admitting you oppose freedom of speech?

Do you always make up stupid shit?

Do you support freedom of speech or not?

Of course.

So you can’t deny the negative effects and now you babble stupidly. Good job.

I'll take that to mean you oppose freedom of speech.

Move to Cuba.

So you don’t have a real argument? My freedom of speech hasn’t been effected. How has yours?

It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.

Share specifically how your freedom of speech was affected.

 

[bripat9643]

It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.

Share specifically how your freedom of speech was affected.

ROLF! Are you a complete moron? The law prevented people from publishing anything related to the election. How is that not a constraint on my freedom of speech?

 

[Brain357]

It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.

Share specifically how your freedom of speech was affected.

ROLF! Are you a complete moron? The law prevented people from publishing anything related to the election. How is that no a constraint on my freedom of speech?

When were you ever prevented anything?

 

[bripat9643]

It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.

Share specifically how your freedom of speech was affected.

ROLF! Are you a complete moron? The law prevented people from publishing anything related to the election. How is that no a constraint on my freedom of speech?

When were you ever prevented anything?

You're too fucking stupid to argue with. The case the decision was based on was where the FEC prevented the author of a book about Hillary Clinton from publishing it. How is that not censorship?

 

[Brain357]

It was affected by McCain-Feingold before the USSC repealed it. You're just too stupid to know it.

Share specifically how your freedom of speech was affected.

ROLF! Are you a complete moron? The law prevented people from publishing anything related to the election. How is that no a constraint on my freedom of speech?

When were you ever prevented anything?

You're too fucking stupid to argue with.

So you weren’t? I didn’t think so.

 

[iceberg]

you did not answer the question.

Of course I did. You can't sue because I didn't violate the provisions by promoting a particular view. Twitter publishes far left propaganda. Users who don't promote what Twitter wants are banned. The TOS is meaningless, pedophiles have a platform on Twitter, provided they promote leftism. Anyone right of Mao who is not a celebrity is instantly banned.

my question was clear. it was about what happens if the legal shield provided by 230 CDA no longer applies. don't bother. i did not expect a responsive, honest, intelligent, and/or interesting reply from you.

Social media has 2 immediate choices.

Stop censuring. Period. No more. Penalty of law stuff.

Keep censuring, declare you are a publisher, and now be held liable for all accuracy via legal means of recourse.

Long term fight it. Social media is neither a publisher nor platform anymore. A new designation will come eventually with updated rules of play.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

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

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

 

[iceberg]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

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

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

social media has taken the best of both and refused the responsibility of either.

that's over.

 

[Brain357]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

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

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

I'm not an extremist, but I am a right-leaning Republican. Even I'm not real keen on this.

People can boycott whatever they like. It's been done so many times in the past. When Chick-Fil-A took a religious stance on gay marriage, the left countered by telling it's ilk to boycott the restaurant chain. At the same time, people on the right flooded their restaurants. They had lines out the door and surrounding the building. That's what I'm for.

The US Constitution gives us the right to free speech, but you can't go into your bosses office tomorrow and tell him his wife and kids are the ugliest people you've ever seen. You will get fired. The Constitution does not give you the right of free speech from everybody, it gives you the right to free speech by any government.

On the other hand, you can't sign an agreement protecting you from liability because you're a platform - not a content provider, have the government help you grow your platform by protecting you while you swallow or eliminate the competition, then suddenly act like a provider, not a platform

Quite a mess isn’t it?

 

[MisterBeale]

These rats are censoring conservatives.

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

Interesting. I've kinda toyed around with that idea. The fact that these online giants are suppressing opposing viewpoints, and considering how big and influential they have become, it could be tantamount to influencing an election. And as you said, an "in kind" donation to the democratic candidate.

Having said that, I struggle with this, because I believe private business should be free to operate, legally, without interference from the government. These big companies should be allowed to operate as they see fit, no? If they want to only allow one viewpoint, should they be denied that? If the other side doesn't like it, then they should create a competing company to allow their viewpoints. As long as those other companies do not throw obstacles in their way that is.

Of course, if those companies are receiving some kind of benefit from the government because they claim to be arbiters of free speech and fair expression of different views, and they are not doing that, then the benefit needs to be removed.

While I agree with you in theory, most of those huge corporations that dominate the top of silicon valley's food chain and monopolize the industry, were made possible by the tax payer, and are in bed with the government and the intelligence agencies.

. . . thus, should they have a monopoly over propaganda and influencing the debate?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

How the CIA made Google

Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet — part 1

medium.com

Meet In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s Venture Capital Firm (Preview) | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

This is why I struggle with an answer to this. As we can see, this is what happens when a company gets too close to the government. This is what happens when a company is given benefits by a government.

Here we have these giants who have been built as private companies, but have, in some cases, worked so closely with the government, and may have been given benefits by that government that have helped them grow, and they have become so very influential in everyone's lives.

On one hand, one would say that they should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, on the other hand, they have been allowed to become so powerful that they could, in fact, steer an election. How does one reconcile that? I have a hard time with that, as one who wants maximum freedom and liberty to exceed. It is a contradiction, and a paradox.

Or, when their users follow all the rules, they can destroy them and their livelihood with no warning, because the website algorithms have determined they are a high target social influencer which could impact voter opinion.

This guy never thought it could happen to him apparently.

Mirrored video;



For some reason, every time I click a link to his Bitchute channel in posts, it comes up empty, so here it is again if anyone is curious.

Press For Truth

Press For Truth - Smashing The Pyramid One Brick At A Time! Support my work here: PATREON ➜ https://www.patreon.com/PressForTruth SUBSCRIBESTAR ➜ https://www.subscribestar.com/pressfortruth DONATE via Paypal ➜ https://www.paypal.me/PressforTru…

www.bitchute.com

I don't know why our Admin won't get around to letting us embed video from other sites, at least our problem on this forum would be solved, we wouldn't have to rely on FB, Google or YouTube.

Regarding Bitchute.

Since YouTube is clearly become partisan and political, as it is a subsidiary of Google, can we PLEASE get the ability to embed Bit-chute videos? It is my opinions that with out the freedom of speech, a political discussion site is becoming worthless. The Corbett Report The Corbett Report

www.usmessageboard.com