State-Sponsored Censorship

[EvMetro]

Don't start equivocating. We're talking state-sponsored censorship. Show me a thread where I have supported such a thing. When you fail, come back and apologize for lying.

When you introduce other examples of censorship or hypothetical examples of censorship that are acceptable where the argument that government or political censorship is not, the strawman is intended to justify the use of censorship in broader form.

Your commie soul knows that political censorship is required in order for leftyism to survive, so you will always be ok with suppression of speech, regardless of if it is legal or not.

 

[dblack]

When you introduce other examples of censorship or hypothetical examples of censorship that are acceptable where the argument that government or political censorship is not, the strawman is intended to justify the use of censorship in broader form.

??? Examples? Nuthin? You lied? Ok.

Your commie soul knows that political censorship is required in order for leftyism to survive, so you will always be ok with suppression of speech, regardless of if it is legal or not.

So, back to the same trumpster trolling bullshit. Partisan dumbass.

 

[bodecea]

Here is a great article about the state sponsored censorship problem that is defining our current political landscape.

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.”

State-Sponsored Censorship

www.theepochtimes.com

The Epoch Times.......................

Cultists gonna cult.

 

[EvMetro]

Dance, dance, dance.

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

Ask this in the correct context of this thread. That would mean you would be asking me if I believe the government should be encouraging Facebook to do the censoring or banning.

 

[dblack]

The Epoch Times.......................

Cultists gonna cult.

Did you read the article? It's not the usual Trumpster stupidity. It's well-supported, well-reasoned and raises genuine concerns. Check it out.

 

[EvMetro]

The Epoch Times.......................

Cultists gonna cult.

Are you disputing the quotes of the government?

When lefties cannot attack the content, they can only resort to attacking the source. This is a strong endorsement of the content.

 

[dblack]

Ask this in the correct context of this thread. That would mean you would be asking me if I believe the government should be encouraging Facebook to do the censoring or banning.

??

I'll try again: Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? - I'm betting you do. Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts? - I'm betting you think they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

In other words, you have no consistent principles. You're in favor of such government mandates when they benefit your party, you oppose them when they don't. People like you, both left and right, are the core of the problem.

 

[bendog]

Did you read the article? It's not the usual Trumpster stupidity. It's well-supported, well-reasoned and raises genuine concerns. Check it out.

I dunno about that. We'd all probably agree that the govt weighing in to keep social media from "publishing" someone who posts something that is false or misleading, without realizing its false or misleading, would be illegal state censorship. But the author, who is hardly a purveyor of truth himself, then seems to me to mix publishing know falsehoods. And that is not protected speech.

 

[bendog]

??

I'll try again: Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? - I'm betting you do. Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts? - I'm betting you think they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

In other words, you have no consistent principles. You're in favor of such government mandates when they benefit your party, you oppose them when they don't. People like you, both left and right, are the core of the problem.

Thank you. That was my complaint about Souza's linked oped.

 

[EvMetro]

I'll try again: Do you think Twitter should be forced to host Trump's tweets? - I'm betting you do. Should Facebook be allowed to ban him, or flag his posts? - I'm betting you think they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

This is not about government sponsored censorship. Why are you fighting so hard to get away from government sponsored censorship? This fight to get away from government sponsored censorship is protecting and supporting government sponsored censorship.

 

[EvMetro]

I liked this part of the D'Souza article:


"...The Nazis called this Gleichschaltung, a term that means “coordination.” The Nazi goal was to bring the entire private sector into lockstep with Nazi ideology, and in no area was this forced conformity more aggressively enforced than in the domain of free speech.



No one is saying the Biden administration is made up of Nazis; I’m merely saying that they are acting in a manner that in this respect resembles the Nazis when they first came to power. Of course all tyrannical regimes—from the former Soviet Union to China, Cuba, and Venezuela today—engage in similar forms of repression, and they do it using the same..."

 

[BackAgain]

Epoctimes Plus, there is already a half a dozen threads on the issue.

Your ineffective and obvious use of fallacy is noted.

Forget the fact that attacking the messenger is fallacious. Try to address the actual message. Do you disagree with the case law citation in some way?

I guess for a hack troll of your intellectual stature, the better question is “can you even understand it?”

 

[BackAgain]

But more importantly, you are a fascist who opposes every liberal tenet imaginable.

No he doesn’t! He embraces fascist liberal tenets and endorses them wholeheartedly.

 

[dblack]

This is not about government sponsored censorship. Why are you fighting so hard to get away from government sponsored censorship?

I'm not. It seems you're actually too stupid to realize I'm agreeing with you.

But I'm also trying to encourage you to follow through on your supposed principles. If you oppose government forcing companies to censor content, do it consistently. Doing otherwise just makes you a hypocritical, partisan tool.

 

[colfax_m]

So you are disputing that the government is encouraging social media to do what they aren't allowed to do?

Not at all. I’m drawing a distinction between the government providing material support and the government merely making a statement.

 

[dblack]

Not at all. I’m drawing a distinction between the government providing material support and the government merely making a statement.

The question, in this case, isn't about material support - it's about the threat, implicit and explicit, of repealing section 230 if the companies to do not comply.

 

[bendog]

The question, in this case, isn't about material support - it's about the threat, implicit and explicit, of repealing section 230 if the companies to do not comply.

Well if facebook, spotify, et al will allow lies to be intentionally "published" as truth, what is the point of keeping 230?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

For this reason, there should be thousands of lawsuits against FedGov including the Biden administration.

Especially from families of those who died because they were falsely led to believe that the shots prevent transmission and supersede comorbidities.

 

[dblack]

Well if facebook, spotify, et al will allow lies to be intentionally "published" as truth, what is the point of keeping 230?

I don't think we should keep 230. It's unnecessary, and simply gives Congress a leverage point. Let the courts sort it out.

 

[bendog]

I don't think we should keep 230. It's unnecessary, and simply gives Congress a leverage point. Let the courts sort it out.

Well spotify will keep Rogan, but my only use for them was for a play list for the gym. (my daughter showed me how to use it. LOL. I miss my cd player) But I think we could sue Facebook out of existence, and I'd love to see it happen. But then, would the only thing left be on Tor and the dark web? I don't know anything about it besides what I'm told by law enforcement people who arrest child porn folks. (-: