Is free speech under attack?

[Marener]

GARM was a front, a facade to censure information:

House Judiciary Committee Report Exposes Shadowy Corporate Coordination to Silence Conservatives

The House Judiciary Committee released a damning report Wednesday morning with shocking details of corporate collusion to silence conservative viewpoints through targeting Breitbart News, Joe Rogan, and Twitter (now X) among others.

judiciary.house.gov

So you’re saying that businesses are legally required to advertise on twitter?

So much for freedom.

 

[LibertyKid]

So you’re saying that businesses are legally required to advertise on twitter?

So much for freedom.

I'm saying what's in the document, did you read it?

 

[Marener]

I'm saying what's in the document, did you read it?

Yes. The document says GARM was exercising free speech.

And that is not okay with you guys because you don’t agree with their speech.

 

[task0778]

Yes. The document says GARM was exercising free speech.

And that is not okay with you guys because you don’t agree with their speech.

Actually, GARM was attacking the free speech rights of other organizations, which I'm not too crazy about.

GARM calls itself “an industry first effort that unites marketers, media agencies, media platforms, industry associations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”

This isn't about alerting consumers to bad/questionable products or services, it's about stifling political thought and speech. So, I kinda have a problem with that. They will decide what is harmful and what isn't, basically whatever opposes their agenda.

 

[Marener]

Actually, GARM was attacking the free speech rights of other organizations, which I'm not too crazy about.

GARM calls itself “an industry first effort that unites marketers, media agencies, media platforms, industry associations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the potential of digital media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”

This isn't about alerting consumers to bad/questionable products or services, it's about stifling political thought and speech. So, I kinda have a problem with that. They will decide what is harmful and what isn't, basically whatever opposes their agenda.

How exactly are they “stifling” anyone’s thoughts and speech?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well you don't. The social media platform has every right to delete your post or ban you entirely.

Else USMB would be entangled in about five thousand lawsuits.

That’s fine but the Govt shouldn’t prosecute you for that post

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It was in their legal filing. At least keep up with the arguments so that you can keep up with the arguments.

Yeah and it got thrown out. Yes or no? CO lost 9-0

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let’s see if we can have productive conversation about the subject….

With all the lies and disinformation circulating around our political atmosphere how would you suggest we address that issue while maintaining first amendment rights?

We don’t police it unless there is a threat of violence. Period. The platform may ban the account but the Govt should not prosecute

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Deny. Deny. Deny.

Don’t see a link. Maybe my phone blocked it?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So you’re saying that businesses are legally required to advertise on twitter?

So much for freedom.

Dumbass

Collusion is against the law. It’s the opposite of free speech.

 

[westwall]

We all saw what happened in the UK. Is this coming here? Violence isn’t protected and now many on the left want to make “misinformation” illegal. But misinformation is subjective and subject to interpretation.
Good article attached from thehill.com along with some other pertinent data.

Are you for or against free speech if that speech includes what you perceive as misinformation but not violence?

Democrats cry foul as anti-free speech allies turn against them

“Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”

thehill.com

Adam Schiff renews the Democratic war against the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

In September 2014, 54 Democratic senators voted to repeal the First Amendment of the Constitution.They were supporting a proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., whose stated goal was to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision, which struck down a host...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

The answer is yes.

 

[Marener]

Dumbass

Collusion is against the law. It’s the opposite of free speech.

Collusion is not against the law.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Collusion is not against the law.

Yes it is. See unions suing baseball owners.

You know what, Marener. You are a dick who gaslights and diverts threads. All you get are insults from now on. Good fuck yourself you useless bot.

 

[Marener]

Yes it is. See unions suing baseball owners.

You know what, Marener. You are a dick who gaslights and diverts threads. All you get are insults from now on. Good fuck yourself you useless bot.

That’s a labor union dispute, moron. It’s a contractual issue.

There is no contract that we are talking about here.

 

[citygator]

Yeah and it got thrown out. Yes or no? CO lost 9-0

They did lose. I didnt say they won. But they did not lose because of free speech but for a legal argument related who had authority to enforce that law.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That’s a labor union dispute, moron. It’s a contractual issue.

There is no contract that we are talking about here.

Shit for brains, we have monopoly rules. Collusion is against the law. You dumb defect.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They did lose. I didnt say they won. But they did not lose because of free speech but for a legal argument related who had authority to enforce that law.

You are dodging. If I say Jews are the spawn of Satan, should the Govt have the right to arrest me. Yes or no?

Don’t pussy out

 

[citygator]

You are dodging. If I say Jews are the spawn of Satan, should the Govt have the right to arrest me. Yes or no?

Don’t pussy out

The "government" cant regulate speech and you know that. The exception is if you are using speech to intimidate someone which isnt protected. This is just a woe is me thread.

• You arent protect from being canceled for disgusting viewpoints
• You arent protected from someone else shouting louder than you
• You are not given permission to intimidate

 

[Marener]

Shit for brains, we have monopoly rules. Collusion is against the law. You dumb defect.

This has nothing to do with monopolization, dipshit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The "government" cant regulate speech and you know that. The exception is if you are using speech to intimidate someone which isnt protected. This is just a woe is me thread.

• You arent protect from being canceled for disgusting viewpoints
• You arent protected from someone else shouting louder than you
• You are not given permission to intimidate

Why can’t you answer a simple yes or no question?

Yes or no? And should it remain a no?

Your party says speech is violence