My, how the so-called "libertarians" are silent.

[Oddball]

Let's start with the First Amendment. Particularly the first few words: "Congress shall pass no law ..."

Except congress did pass a law, which made them exempt from liability because they were a "platform", not a "publisher".

The moment they decided to begin exercising editorial control over content is the moment they abused that status.

 

[dblack]

Except congress did pass a law, which made them exempt from liability because they were a "platform", not a "publisher".

The moment they decided to begin exercising editorial control over content is the moment they abused that status.

You forgot "public square".

 

[Oddball]

You forgot "public square".

As a matter of practice, that's what they are....Which is entirely irrelevant to the protections they enjoy, under the fraudulent rubric of "platform".

Remember, that "Congress shall make no law" thingy?

 

[dblack]

As a matter of practice, that's what they are...

No. Private businesses that cater to the public don't suddenly become public property. Are you still in there? ??

.Which is entirely irrelevant to the protections they enjoy, under the fraudulent rubric of "platform".

Remember, that "Congress shall make no law" thingy?

Hmm.. yeah. Chasing you guys around with these withering excuses gets tiresome. I really wish I could wave a wand and repeal 230. In would be messy for a while, but in short order the courts would settle on precedent amounting to exactly the same policy as 230.

But it doesn't matter, does it? None of these excuses represent any real principles or values. They're just ammo to lob at the other side.

 

[Oddball]

Nope. Private business that cater to the public don't suddenly become public property.

Hmm.. yeah. Chasing you guys around with these withering excuses gets tiresome. I really wish I could wave a wand repeal 230. In would be messy for a while, but in short order the courts would settle on precedent amounting to exactly the same policy as 230.

But it doesn't matter, does it? None of these excuses represent any real principles or values. They're just ammo to lob at the other side.

"Congress shall make no law"....Remember that one?....It was only a few posts ago.

Well, they made a fucking law, that carves out a special status for them from legal liabilities....I thought you alleged "libertarians" hated that shit.

 

[dblack]

"Congress shall make no law"....Remember that one?....It was only a few posts ago.

Well, they made a fucking law, that carves out a special status for them from legal liabilities....I thought you alleged "libertarians" hated that shit.

So get it repealed! I'm all for that. It wouldn't change anything, but it'd cross one of the excuses off your list. But that's not what the rest of these folks are after.

For fuck's sake, they're using the First Amendment to justify a regulatory crackdown on social media. It doesn't get much more Orwellian than that.

 

[toobfreak]

Private businesses that cater to the public don't suddenly become public property.

Except perhaps when they refuse to put gay messages on a cake?

 

[dblack]

Except perhaps when they refuse to put gay messages on a cake?

No, not then either.

But it's good that you at least recognize that it's the same principle. And that you're making the same lame arguments as those going after the baker.

 

[cnm]

I dont think they did find anything. The confident and triumphant way Trump Junior is running around saying that they got nothing, is pretty telling.

This aged well...

 

[toobfreak]

No, not then either.

But it's good that you at least recognize that it's the same principle. And that you're making the same lame arguments as those going after the baker.

Lame argument? They put the bakery out of business!

But hey, I'm still waiting for you to explain all I don't know about the Constitution and such that you said I needed to read? I keep the Constitution, Dec. of Ind. and the Bill of Rights right on the shelf in front of me. BTW, what are the four Organic Laws of the US?

 

[dblack]

Lame argument? They put the bakery out of business!

It was still a lame argument. Still wrong.

But hey, I'm still waiting for you to explain all I don't know about the Constitution ...

Listen. You're using the First Amendment to justify a regulatory crackdown on social media. There's not much else to discuss.

But the cognitive dissonance must give you headaches.

 

[toobfreak]

You're using the First Amendment to justify a regulatory crackdown on social media.

Use whatever you want. A few years ago, democrats claimed that a few ads on Facebook helped throw the election for Trump. Now you are arguing that anything goes?

Social media is the defacto standard means for communication these days.

FB and Twitter hold a near complete monopoly over most social media and they are decidedly far left political now admittedly working with factions within the democrat party in Washington ostensibly to get around First Amendment restrictions on the government doing it themselves overtly and directly.

This is nothing less than surreptitiously using private industry in collaboration with government to affect and influence political agendas for the end of suppressing political opposition.

I cannot think of any greater threat to a true democracy and it must be stopped. It WILL be stopped.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No. It doesn't. You clearly don't understand the Constitution, nor the First Amendment.

The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech from being regulated by the government (which is exactly what you jerkoffs are clamoring for). The First Amendment doesn't force us to cater to dickheads.

I agree… Except to the extent that private organizations are doing the bidding of government.

I will not support a back door private sector violation of our constitution. (Which you know damn well as what I suspect)

Otherwise, again, I agree.

 

[dblack]

Use whatever you want. A few years ago, democrats claimed that a few ads on Facebook helped throw the election for Trump. Now you are arguing that anything goes?

I never argued anything of the kind. I'm not Democrat.

Social media is the defacto standard means for communication these days.

No, it's not. They just have a lot of power to influence society, and you want government to take over. I guess you think that will give you control, but it won't. It will give power to whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

I cannot think of any greater threat to a true democracy and it must be stopped. It WILL be stopped.

I think you are right. You fascist fucks are going to kill the US.

 

[dblack]

I agree… Except to the extent that private organizations are doing the bidding of government.

If it's voluntary, it's not a problem. And that's what Trump supporters just can't accept. Lots of people think that they are dangerous fascists, and some of those people own and operate businesses. Some of them operate websites.

I will not support a back door private sector violation of our constitution. (Which you know damn well as what I suspect)

I don't think it would be that hard to prove if it was going on at scale. Eventually, someone would spill the beans and accuse the government of overstepping their bounds. I think the truth is that Twitter and Facebook are owned and operated by people who don't much like Trump. That's allowed.

 

[Godboy]

This aged well...

Um, what news are you reading? Trumps walks away from this stronger than ever.

 

[toobfreak]

I never argued anything of the kind.

Sure you did, when you said regulation was not the answer. Regulation and laws are the answer to everything. We are a nation of laws (republic) in case you didn't know. That's what republic means.

No, it's not. They just have a lot of power to influence society, and you want government to take over.

I just want someone to fix an obviously corrupt and broken system.

I guess you think that will give you control, but it won't. It will give power to whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

I don't want control, I don't want power, anymore than any other law gives to prosecute crime, and government coercing private industry to work together to circumvent the first amendment should be a crime. Using Big Tech as a monopoly to effect private political ends to influence the direction of a nation for your own ends should be a CRIME.

Idiots like you who think stopping leftwing corruption and fixing media so that using it coercively to effect political control for themselves is "fascism" need deprived of any voting rights.

Six years ago, you jackholes argued that allowing a few ads on Facebook was Rightwing fascism and election tampering.

Now that we want to FIX social media to end political and election tampering, now you call THAT fascism.

In other words, your argument is that anything that works against leftwing interests is fascism.

You need to go get your head examined.

 

[dblack]

Regulation and laws are the answer to everything.

LOL - okay man. I think I know all I need to know about your politics.

 

[toobfreak]

LOL - okay man. I think I know all I need to know about your politics.

MY politics? Why, Ace, you just denounced your own if you think a free and just republic of laws promoting individual liberty through a constitutional government is "politics."

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

You're right. Living under Biden's Regime is more like the KGB in the Soviet Union.

Typical idiotic exaggeration. Can’t you right wingers ever speak rationally and without hyperbole? Go live in Russia today, or China, and speak out against the “regimes” there and see what happens to you.