State-Sponsored Censorship

[EvMetro]

This is a well written article that makes a sound argument with real evidence. Clearly EvMetro's account has been hacked.

Looks like I flushed a commie out of the shadows.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a well written article that makes a sound argument with real evidence. Clearly EvMetro's account has been hacked.

How many verses of "I told you so" should I sing to you, dblack?


I know you and I are nearly 100% on the same page philosophically, but your Trump hatred prevented you from foreseeing this problem.

 

[dblack]

How many verses of "I told you so" should I sing to you, dblack?


I know you and I are nearly 100% on the same page philosophically, but your Trump hatred prevented you from foreseeing this problem.

I've seen the problem all along. But there's a line to be drawn here, one far too subtle for Trumpsters to comprehend.

The trick is to prevent the government arm twisting, while protecting the rights of private business. Most of what I see from Republicans is simply a desire to replace the edicts of the Biden administration with those of Trump.

To wit: how many here rightfully complaining about Biden flagging "misinformation" are completely on board with government forcing Twitter to un-ban Trump?

 

[EvMetro]

How many verses of "I told you so" should I sing to you, dblack?


I know you and I are nearly 100% on the same page philosophically, but your Trump hatred prevented you from foreseeing this problem.

I've gone many rounds with black about censorship. He ultimately defends political censorship like lefties do.

 

[EvMetro]

I've seen the problem all along. But there's a line to be drawn here, one far too subtle for Trumpsters to comprehend.

The trick is to prevent the government arm twisting, while protecting the rights of private business. Most of what see from Republicans is simply a desire to replace the edicts of the Biden administration with those of Trump.

To wit: how many here rightfully complaining about Biden flagging "misinformation" are completely on board with government forcing Twitter to un-ban Trump?

Un-ban Trump? You are thinking like a lefty. It's not just about any one person, it's about political censorship in general. Especially for the private sector arms of the government like social media and big tech.

 

[dblack]

Un-ban Trump? You are thinking like a lefty. It's not just about any one person, it's about political censorship in general. Especially for the private sector arms of the government like social media and big tech.

Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts?

 

[colfax_m]

Since lefties will browse this thread looking for ways to support and defend government sponsored censorship, I'll leave this again:

In a landmark 1973 case, Norwood v. Harrison, the Supreme Court held that government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

If we take this as a blanket statement, then this really does shut down a tremendous amount of speech at the level of government.

For instance, when Trump said the players who take knees during the anthem should be fired would be similarly unconstitutional.

 

[EvMetro]

If we take this as a blanket statement, then this really does shut down a tremendous amount of speech at the level of government.

For instance, when Trump said the players who take knees during the anthem should be fired would be similarly unconstitutional.

Lol, I was wondering how long before a lefty made this thread about J6 or Trump.

 

[colfax_m]

Lol, I was wondering how long before a lefty made this thread about J6 or Trump.

It's just a little silly to think that this would limit the speech of government in such a manner. This interpretation is far too expansive.

The original case was about the state providing material support to a segregated school. It wasn't about people in government offering an opinion of some sort.

 

[EvMetro]

Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts?

You are attempting to establish justification of political censorship, since you support and defend it.

This thread is about state sponsored censorship, not what my personal beliefs are.

 

[EvMetro]

It's just a little silly to think that this would limit the speech of government in such a manner. This interpretation is far too expansive.

The original case was about the state providing material support to a segregated school. It wasn't about people in government offering an opinion of some sort.

You are supporting and defending unconstitutional state sponsored censorship.

 

[dblack]

It's just a little silly to think that this would limit the speech of government in such a manner. This interpretation is far too expansive.

The original case was about the state providing material support to a segregated school. It wasn't about people in government offering an opinion of some sort.

The key point of the article was the implied threat, murmured consistently by Democrats (and Republicans), to repeal 230 if these companies failed to do the government's bidding. This is exactly why I think we SHOULD repeal 230. It would be quickly replaced by court precedent preserving a similar policy, but it would no longer be at the mercy of Congress, no longer a threat the state can hold over the heads of internet businesses.

 

[dblack]

You are attempting to establish justification of political censorship, since you support and defend it.

And you're lying again, because it's your goto when thinking fails you.

This thread is about state sponsored censorship, not what my personal beliefs are.

You're a hypocrite, a moron and a troll. You don't have any genuine political convictions other than what benefits your party at the moment.

 

[dblack]

Un-ban Trump? You are thinking like a lefty. It's not just about any one person, it's about political censorship in general. Especially for the private sector arms of the government like social media and big tech.

Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's anyone's tweets? Should Facebook be allowed to ban him anyone, or flag his their posts?

 

[EvMetro]

And you're lying again, because it's your goto when thinking fails you.

You're a hypocrite, a moron and a troll. You don't have any genuine political convictions other than what benefits your party at the moment.

I have posted several examples of state sponsored censorship in this thread. It's happening, and commies like you and colfax_m will be fighting to support and defend it. Lefties love censorship, and they are supporting and defending it in every thread about censorship in the entire history of this site. Like clockwork

 

[colfax_m]

You are supporting and defending unconstitutional state sponsored censorship.

How is the state “sponsoring” it? They provide no support for social media platforms.

 

[EvMetro]

Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's anyone's tweets? Should Facebook be allowed to ban him anyone, or flag his their posts?

If you are going to modify your question, connect it to the state sponsored censorship context that this thread is about.

 

[dblack]

I have posted several examples of state sponsored censorship in this thread. It's happening, and commies like you and colfax_m will be fighting to support and defend it.

This is such a common pattern with you. You think you can just make shit up, shit that is 100% demonstrably false, and then just keep harping on it as though it's true. Does that work for you in real life?

 

[dblack]

If you are going to modify your question, connect it to the state sponsored censorship context that this thread is about.

If you're going to run away from the answer, from your own hypocrisy, there's little point. Keep ducking.

 

[EvMetro]

How is the state “sponsoring” it? They provide no support for social media platforms.

Cute. Re read the referenced court case. You are fighting HARD to defend censorship, including government sponsored censorship.