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

[Utilitarian]

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?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint. It's about resources. If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Granted, it also says a lot about groupthink. Free speech itself may be moot, when considering that most people aren't critical thinkers. Most people only have opinions that are a product of what they've been propagandized to think. They don't try to think outside of whatever box they've been put in.

 

[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.

Yes, Mitch is in no position to talk tough.

He should just butt out.

Those corporations are doing what they think is good for business: showing how much they love certain folks. Regardless of the facts.

They should not be surprised if they are hoist by their own petard.

Oh dear, another top 1% arse licker.

How does it feel to sell out?

Lol, okay one of the last times you loons started a boycott. How did that work out? Chick-fil-A? They love ya! Now you loons move the all-star game. Good bye baseball. I just want to see if the president of MLB turns in his Agusta golf membership. If he doesn't you liberals are getting played.

 

[cnm]

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?

I think you've made a basic error as to which party is Congress, which shall make no law to abridge free speech, and which party is a private entity. However, such confusion is endemic among deplorables, so no worries.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

Yes it would. But it also allows to sue for the same... Which means... Everybody gets censored. EVERYBODY. Not just conservatives, or crazies if you like to think of them that way.

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?

Negative. They would hold the same kind of rights a telephone or power company would have. If whatever happens is not illegal, then they can't be sued for it. There is nothing stopping them from allowing others to ignore them in this context... But you can't stop them from using the platform if they are paying for it, be it cash money or information gained.

A telephone or power company can't take away your phone or power because they don't like your views.

 

[colfax_m]

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 only dictate what occurs on their own property.

Did the law intend for people to determine what occurs on their property?

 

[colfax_m]

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

There aren’t. Just looks how Trump got millions of fewer votes both times.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Not according to current law.

There’s a huge difference between publishing and what platforms do.

 

[Nostra]

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

There aren’t. Just looks how Trump got millions of fewer votes both times.

So did Slick.

 

[jknowgood]

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

There aren’t. Just looks how Trump got millions of fewer votes both times.

No, Trump got 80 million votes last election. Too bad your party cheated.

 

[asaratis]

Are you saying there should be no rules and no means of enforcing rules on private property?

No. I'm saying that all users should have to comply with the terms of use and that all transgressors should pay the same price for violating them, regardless of political posture. This is not the case with any of the Big Tech companies. They suppress conservatives and promote liberals.

Justice Clarence Thomas Says Big Tech Doesn’t Have Right To Censor Americans

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasted Big Tech on Monday, arguing that they are “common carriers” who don’t have the right to censor Americans, as reported by Jamie White on infowars.com. And now one question comes

defconnews.com

Big tech censorship is growing—here are the 4 solutions you haven’t read about yet

Scrolling through Twitter in recent weeks, I’ve found it hard to go ten tweets without seeing some disgruntled user plug their Parler username—usually partnered with some variation of the words: “Add me on here, I’m done with Twitter.” Conservatives have been fleeing the site for months as the...

saraacarter.com

 

[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?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint.

The free speech component of the First Amendment is strictly about government restraint. "Congress shall make no law" is quite clear. It has nothing to do with "resources".

If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Yeah. That's the way freedom works. Some people have more influence, wealth, "resources", than others. Some people have more power to steer society than others. So what?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So absolutely no one elected them to dictate their interests. Their "power" is being able to corrupt others with their money, not to convince others with the power of their arguments.

 

[woodwork201]

Election fraud is a lie.

Would someone please tell Nancy Pelosi that?

Nancy Pelosi On N.C. Election Fraud: We Can Refuse To Seat That Congressman

Any newly elected House member can object to the swearing-in of Republican Mark Harris amid his election scandal.

www.huffpost.com

Pelosi's attempt to overturn Miller-Meeks' certified Iowa win: What to know

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks has been a voting member of Congress for three months, but the Iowa Republican's tenure in Washington may be short-lived depending on the outcome of the challenge to her razor-thin 2020 election victory.

www.foxnews.com

DNC Whistleblower or Shill Claims Kamala Harris And Nancy Pelosi Behind Rampant Election Fraud –

Whether real or fake, this makes for an interesting topic considering everything is now being exposed. So here’s the story: Allegedly a DNC whistle blower in fear of where to turn to report v…

themarshallreport.wordpress.com

 

[woodwork201]

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 only dictate what occurs on their own property.

Did the law intend for people to determine what occurs on their property?

Election law currently requires equal time for radio and television. There's zero doubt in anyone's mind that social media is the new communications platform equivalent of radio and TV in the past. The equal time rule should definitely apply to social media.

 

[Utilitarian]

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?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint.

The free speech component of the First Amendment is strictly about government restraint. "Congress shall make no law" is quite clear. It has nothing to do with "resources".

If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Yeah. That's the way freedom works. Some people have more influence, wealth, "resources", than others. Some people have more power to steer society than others. So what?

So, that power is fine if it is a monopoly or close to it?

 

[Utilitarian]

So absolutely no one elected them to dictate their interests. Their "power" is being able to corrupt others with their money, not to convince others with the power of their arguments.

At some point, the market purists will realize that free speech is only an illusion if a monopoly or oligopoly controls what can be spoken.

 

[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?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint.

The free speech component of the First Amendment is strictly about government restraint. "Congress shall make no law" is quite clear. It has nothing to do with "resources".

If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Yeah. That's the way freedom works. Some people have more influence, wealth, "resources", than others. Some people have more power to steer society than others. So what?

So, that power is fine if it is a monopoly or close to it?

As long as it's voluntarily established - ie no one is forced to do business with them.

 

[Utilitarian]

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?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint.

The free speech component of the First Amendment is strictly about government restraint. "Congress shall make no law" is quite clear. It has nothing to do with "resources".

If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Yeah. That's the way freedom works. Some people have more influence, wealth, "resources", than others. Some people have more power to steer society than others. So what?

So, that power is fine if it is a monopoly or close to it?

As longs it's voluntarily established - ie no one is forced to do business with them.

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

 

[dblack]

So absolutely no one elected them to dictate their interests. Their "power" is being able to corrupt others with their money, not to convince others with the power of their arguments.

At some point, the market purists will realize that free speech is only an illusion if a monopoly or oligopoly controls what can be spoken.

No, they won't. Because market purists recognize the difference between economic power - which allows no coercion, and state power - pure coercion. You can tell Facebook to piss off whenever you like. And Zuckerberg can't do a damned thing about it. Defy the government, and it's a different story.

 

[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?

What both sides should realize now is that free speech is defined by more than just government restraint.

The free speech component of the First Amendment is strictly about government restraint. "Congress shall make no law" is quite clear. It has nothing to do with "resources".

If most public discourse is taking place in a market that is dominated by one supplier, then that supplier has the power to steer speech in whatever direction it likes.

Yeah. That's the way freedom works. Some people have more influence, wealth, "resources", than others. Some people have more power to steer society than others. So what?

So, that power is fine if it is a monopoly or close to it?

As longs it's voluntarily established - ie no one is forced to do business with them.

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.