Is free speech under attack?

[Slade3200]

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

OK, I agree with that. How does it help the problem?

 

[dblack]

I only asked if the courts should decide. Marener is too cowardly to answer.

I'm still confused by what "withheld" means. It seems to imply they owed something and refused to pay. If not, if they simply chose not to advertise with Twitter, I don't see how that can be illegal. Even if a group of advertisers agreed to do so in unison. Boycotts aren't illegal.

 

[d0gbreath]

Thank you

Why does the D party want to curb free speech?

I think that you'll find that the D and the R parties try to stifle what they don't like. Apparently it's the 1st amendment.

 

[Marener]

Antitrust

The lawsuit said, opens new tab advertisers, acting through a World Federation of Advertisers initiative called Global Alliance for Responsible Media, collectively withheld “billions of dollars in advertising revenue” from X, previously known as Twitter.
It said they acted against their own economic self-interests in a conspiracy against the platform that violated U.S. antitrust law.

So the courts will decide. Yes or no? You never answer questions. Bitch.

Lawsuit is stupid. This claim makes no sense whatsoever. This can’t be antitrust issue because this has nothing to do with competition. If the claim were true, then every boycott would be illegal. It should be tossed as it is clearly intended to punish those who oppose Elon.

But, the partisan hack judge that they shopped it to doesn’t care.

The purpose of the lawsuit isn’t to win. It can’t and won’t win. The purpose of the lawsuit is to punish others that Elon wants silenced by burying them in legal bills.

 

[Marener]

"Withheld"? If they are refusing to pay for advertising they received, or contracted to receive, then it's just a matter of fraud, and they should definitely be sued.

In Elon’s world, you are legally required to do business with his companies.

 

[Resnic]

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

Yes it is. We're just taking longer than the UK for real suppression.

We have politicians openly advocating for speech suppression and no one is really doing anything about it. Some complain but no one actually does anything. The more democrats are allowed to get away with talking about suppressing speech the more normal the idea becomes and then the easier it is to enact it.

We have seen it already with the MSM, politicians allowed to openly lie, society saying truth and reality is hate speech and needs to be ended, people calling for the end of anything deemed misinformation, AI being used to create false information, polls being used to alter society. All speech is being damaged to some degree in some way and we all sit here and suck on it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

OK, I agree with that. How does it help the problem?

It shows that people who view life completely differently can at least agree on this. Hope.

 

[citygator]

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

I answered the question directly - government cant limit speech with the exception of those circumstances I listed. Go ahead and link to democratic policies limiting free speech please so I can evaluate your claim.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I'm still confused by what "withheld" means. It seems to imply they owed something and refused to pay. If not, if they simply chose not to advertise with Twitter, I don't see how that can be illegal. Even if a group of advertisers agreed to do so in unison. Boycotts aren't illegal.

I guess the courts will decide.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Lawsuit is stupid. This claim makes no sense whatsoever. This can’t be antitrust issue because this has nothing to do with competition. If the claim were true, then every boycott would be illegal. It should be tossed as it is clearly intended to punish those who oppose Elon.

But, the partisan hack judge that they shopped it to doesn’t care.

The purpose of the lawsuit isn’t to win. It can’t and won’t win. The purpose of the lawsuit is to punish others that Elon wants silenced by burying them in legal bills.

Sounds like the Trump lawsuits

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I answered the question directly - government cant limit speech with the exception of those circumstances I listed. Go ahead and link to democratic policies limiting free speech please so I can evaluate your claim.

Your party claims speech is violence.

Period

 

[Marener]

Sounds like the Trump lawsuits

Yes, Trump has also sued people many times with the purpose of suppressing their speech.

He’s basically admitted it to.

Defending yourself from a rich guy who has lawyers and a bone to pick can be devastating.

 

[citygator]

Your party claims speech is violence.

Period

I noticed a clear lack of a link to that claim as requested. I predict this is where you start deflecting with name calling. 3..2..1....

 

[dblack]

I guess the courts will decide.

Well, I'd be really disappointed of they tried to call a boycott "collusion".

 

[sartre play]

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

WHEN REPUBLICANS (OR ANY PARTY) LIE DISTORT EMBELISH
This is no good for our country.
AND because this MAGA PARTY get caught at it almost daily .
YOUR CANIDATE pushers NEGAITVES daily.. and the pushers of lies includes the little folks on this board.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes, Trump has also sued people many times with the purpose of suppressing their speech.

He’s basically admitted it to.

Defending yourself from a rich guy who has lawyers and a bone to pick can be devastating.

Bot malfunction. LOL

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I noticed a clear lack of a link to that claim as requested. I predict this is where you start deflecting with name calling. 3..2..1....

‘Your speech is violence’: the left’s new mantra to justify campus violence

We are raising a generation of censors and speech-phobics.

thehill.com

Does name calling offend you? Pussy

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

WHEN REPUBLICANS (OR ANY PARTY) LIE DISTORT EMBELISH
This is no good for our country.
AND because this MAGA PARTY get caught at it almost daily .
YOUR CANIDATE pushers NEGAITVES daily.. and the pushers of lies includes the little folks on this board.

Negaiteves must not be pushed. Darn Canidates.

 

[citygator]

‘Your speech is violence’: the left’s new mantra to justify campus violence

We are raising a generation of censors and speech-phobics.

thehill.com

Does name calling offend you? Pussy

That article was about the boogeyman ANTIFA and had zero links or references to Democratic policy that pushes the elimination of free speech. You need to be better at this or else I will continue to make you look uniformed. Or rather you will make yourself look uninformed.

SIMPLE REQUEST: Show me the policy or statement from national democrats pushing the restriction of free speech.

/End Thread if not produced. How can we debate something that hasnt been established as a basic fact? We should agree there is a policy and debate it. What policy?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That article was about the boogeyman ANTIFA and had zero links or references to Democratic policy that pushes the elimination of free speech. You need to be better at this or else I will continue to make you look uniformed. Or rather you will make yourself look uninformed.

SIMPLE REQUEST: Show me the policy or statement from national democrats pushing the restriction of free speech.

/End Thread if not produced. How can we debate something that hasnt been established as a basic fact? We should agree there is a policy and debate it. What policy?

When did I say policy?