Mitch McConnel Bravely Tells The Corporate Elite To Stay Out Of Politics

[AFrench2]

Corportions gotta speak out on this kind of stuff.

Corpabortions?

Have Imentioned lately that I'm a pothead? It's a wonder I even post legibly like 30% the time

 

[AFrench2]

Let's play Remember When: Remember when Mitchy Boy held COVID stimulus for 6 months because he didn't want the peasants to be able to sue their corporate masters if they got COVID and died at work?

Nope gotta link?

But I do remember when Nazi Pelousy held Americans hostage for six months because she said she didn’t want help to come before the election

GOP Insists On Liability Shield For Businesses In Second Stimulus Pact

The parameters of proposed liability protections for businesses have taken center stage in the latest draft of the bill currently under review at the White House.

www.forbes.com

 

[Nostra]

Let's play Remember When: Remember when Mitchy Boy held COVID stimulus for 6 months because he didn't want the peasants to be able to sue their corporate masters if they got COVID and died at work?

Nope gotta link?

But I do remember when Nazi Pelousy held Americans hostage for six months because she said she didn’t want help to come before the election

GOP Insists On Liability Shield For Businesses In Second Stimulus Pact

The parameters of proposed liability protections for businesses have taken center stage in the latest draft of the bill currently under review at the White House.

www.forbes.com

Someday you may learn leftist opinion pieces are not evidence, Dummy.

 

[asaratis]

How are they doing that?

When did corporations ever censor Conservatives on social media?

Twitter, Facebook and Youtube do it daily.

The first amendment guarantees you that the government will not censor your speech.

No it doesn't.
Try reading the full text of it...very slowly so you may grasp its meaning. The bold text relates to freedom of speech.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, some speech is by law, not permitted. Incitement, slander (speech) and libel (print), true threats, intimidation...are punishable by law.

Corporations who provide a platform for speech retain their rights to that platform, which means they can choose what speech is on that platform.

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Look's like another rightist no longer believes in private property rights...unless it's censoring leftwing protestors on private property...hmmmm

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

 

[Crepitus]

if it guarantees free speech without reprisal,

I just told you it does not.

"If it guarantees free speech without reprisal from the government"

There. Learn to quote the whole sentence.

Gotta call shenanigans there. :O) You added "from the government" in a later edit.

"Shenanigans" indeed. Also I didn't get the quote notification for that one either, oddly enough, so thank you for pointing it out.

 

[Crepitus]

if it guarantees free speech without reprisal,

I just told you it does not.

"If it guarantees free speech without reprisal from the government"

There. Learn to quote the whole sentence.

That was the whole sentence when I quoted it.

Sorry for your luck.

 

[Crepitus]

Private entities aren't regulating speech. They can't.

Then why do they have governing policies on their platforms dictating what is acceptable to post and what isn't? Why is Facebook banning Trump's very voice from its platform?

It is because they are regulating speech, something the law never intended them to do.

They are regulating their platforms. You are free to speak elsewhere.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Corporate America is the GOP. The Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.

If you think that's just the Republican Party you've got a lot to learn.

 

[Coyote]

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

These two statements...

For the first...if they become publishers and vulnerable to lawsuits, then the censorship is going to increase because they will then become responsible for content and liable if the content is false, slanderous, libelous ..which would effectively censor many of the voices currently complaining about censorship plus even more.

For the second - platforms have terms of service, rules which users agree to follow in order to create communities open to all. Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

 

[AFrench2]

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

These two statements...

For the first...if they become publishers and vulnerable to lawsuits, then the censorship is going to increase because they will then become responsible for content and liable if the content is false, slanderous, libelous ..which would effectively censor many of the voices currently complaining about censorship plus even more.

For the second - platforms have terms of service, rules which users agree to follow in order to create communities open to all. Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

Coyote, just stop. They don't care. White racist people are being banned from social media and GRANDPA ANGRY.

That's all thatmatters.

 

[Utilitarian]

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

These two statements...

For the first...if they become publishers and vulnerable to lawsuits, then the censorship is going to increase because they will then become responsible for content and liable if the content is false, slanderous, libelous ..which would effectively censor many of the voices currently complaining about censorship plus even more.

For the second - platforms have terms of service, rules which users agree to follow in order to create communities open to all. Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

The second argument is moot. Terms of service are notoriously nebulous in most social media, and they are very selectively enforced. They also can change at a moment's notice.

 

[Utilitarian]

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

These two statements...

For the first...if they become publishers and vulnerable to lawsuits, then the censorship is going to increase because they will then become responsible for content and liable if the content is false, slanderous, libelous ..which would effectively censor many of the voices currently complaining about censorship plus even more.

For the second - platforms have terms of service, rules which users agree to follow in order to create communities open to all. Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

Coyote, just stop. They don't care. White racist people are being banned from social media and GRANDPA ANGRY.

That's all thatmatters.

That's the pot talking again.

 

[AFrench2]

That's the pot talking again.

It's for medicinal purposes. I have Glaucoma

 

[Utilitarian]

That's the pot talking again.

It's for medicinal purposes. I have Glaucoma

Fair enough. From what I hear, CBD is actually pretty useful.

 

[jknowgood]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor.

"Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order," McConnell told a news conference in his home state of Kentucky.

Big business ties with Republicans began fraying under former President Donald Trump's leadership and the party's focus on voting restrictions has soured businesses embracing diversity as key to their work force and customer base. Major Georgia employers Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines have spoken out against the law signed by Governor Brian Kemp, and Major League Baseball pulled the 2021 All-Star Game out of the state over the law strengthening identification requirements for absentee ballots and making it a crime to offer food or water to voters waiting in line.

'Stay out of politics,' Republican leader McConnell tells U.S. CEOs, warns of 'consequences'

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor. McConnell warned companies there could be risks for...

www.yahoo.com

Uh oh, Mitch is talking tough again. Watch out Coke.

Lol, there are more of us. Than you loons.

 

[Coyote]

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

These two statements...

For the first...if they become publishers and vulnerable to lawsuits, then the censorship is going to increase because they will then become responsible for content and liable if the content is false, slanderous, libelous ..which would effectively censor many of the voices currently complaining about censorship plus even more.

For the second - platforms have terms of service, rules which users agree to follow in order to create communities open to all. Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

The second argument is moot. Terms of service are notoriously nebulous in most social media, and they are very selectively enforced. They also can change at a moment's notice.

So if you wanted to argue that you could sue selective enforcement...but you still have rules you agree to, and you typically aren't banned permanently for a one time violation, but for repeatedly doing it and ignoring requests not to. Don't private companies have the right to set rules?

 

[AFrench2]

That's the pot talking again.

It's for medicinal purposes. I have Glaucoma

Fair enough. From what I hear, CBD is actually pretty useful.

I made brownies, who wants some?

 

[evenflow1969]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor.

"Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order," McConnell told a news conference in his home state of Kentucky.

Big business ties with Republicans began fraying under former President Donald Trump's leadership and the party's focus on voting restrictions has soured businesses embracing diversity as key to their work force and customer base. Major Georgia employers Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines have spoken out against the law signed by Governor Brian Kemp, and Major League Baseball pulled the 2021 All-Star Game out of the state over the law strengthening identification requirements for absentee ballots and making it a crime to offer food or water to voters waiting in line.

'Stay out of politics,' Republican leader McConnell tells U.S. CEOs, warns of 'consequences'

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor. McConnell warned companies there could be risks for...

www.yahoo.com

Uh oh, Mitch is talking tough again. Watch out Coke.

So let me get this straight.

Corporations are taking away our first amendment rights by censoring Conservatives on social media, and that is Ok.

But a Republican tells corporations they need to straighten up and he becomes the threatening fascist insurgent?

LOL.

Corporate America have gone to war with the GOP, and with over 70 million Americans.

God forbid they get angry about it.

How does it feel to lick the arse of the top 1% as a Lefty?

You can do what the fuck you want with privately owned platforms. Your ture on the other hand is threatening free speech with government response. You fucking peice of trash

 

[dblack]

And how is the "bake the cake" hypocrisy dance going? Are the Trumpsters still all in on nationalizing social media (and I guess various airlines and sports leagues are on their shit list too)? Are the libs bending over backward to protect the rights of corporations? Do any of you have whiplash?

 

[Utilitarian]

If they censor their platform, they become a publisher and not a free speech platform and must then become vulnerable to lawsuits.

Social media should censor neither the left nor the right.

These two statements...

For the first...if they become publishers and vulnerable to lawsuits, then the censorship is going to increase because they will then become responsible for content and liable if the content is false, slanderous, libelous ..which would effectively censor many of the voices currently complaining about censorship plus even more.

For the second - platforms have terms of service, rules which users agree to follow in order to create communities open to all. Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

The second argument is moot. Terms of service are notoriously nebulous in most social media, and they are very selectively enforced. They also can change at a moment's notice.

So if you wanted to argue that you could sue selective enforcement...but you still have rules you agree to, and you typically aren't banned permanently for a one time violation, but for repeatedly doing it and ignoring requests not to. Don't private companies have the right to set rules?

At this point, I don't think we're talking about private companies singularly anymore.

What needs to happen is more enforcement of antitrust legislation and reform of said legislation. If social media was less oligopolistic, it would be a simple matter of suing or choosing a competitor, but we've seen what happens whenever a potential competitor rises up. There is a concerted effort to destroy it through collusion (like what happened to Parler).

And sadly, said efforts are supported by the media, because all they have to do is pretend that said competitors are for "white supremists." It's no different from the tactics used against anyone the government didn't like in the past when they called certain people communists.