State-Sponsored Censorship

[colfax_m]

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.

That makes this question far different than the case of Norwood v Harrison.

 

[colfax_m]

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

If we don't have section 230, it doesn't really change anything. Congress still can levy threats against social media companies, except instead of threatening to repeal something, they threaten to pass something else. There's no substantive difference.

 

[dblack]

If we don't have section 230, it doesn't really change anything. Congress still can levy threats against social media companies, except instead of threatening to repeal something, they threaten to pass something else. There's no substantive difference.

Fair to say, but there's a qualitative difference. On the one hand, Congress can pretend they're facilitating business, and for that reason, business is obliged to comply with their demands. Threatening new legislation is more obviously an attack.

 

[EvMetro]

That makes this question far different than the case of Norwood v Harrison.

There is no dispute that several examples of government sponsored censorship gave been presented on this thread, and that the government is over the line. Your job dblack's job as a lefties who support and defend censorship, is to continue presenting ANY path or plausible path that suggests that the censorship is either ok or not happening. That's what you will continue to do.

 

[dblack]

There is no dispute that several examples of government sponsored censorship gave been presented on this thread, and that the government is over the line. Your job dblack's job as a lefties who support and defend censorship, is to continue presenting ANY path or plausible path that suggests that the censorship is either ok or not happening. That's what you will continue to do.

If you had an example of me suggesting that state sponsored censorship is ok, you'd post the quote. But you don't. Only the opposite. Only your imagination. Only your lies.

 

[colfax_m]

There is no dispute that several examples of government sponsored censorship gave been presented on this thread, and that the government is over the line. Your job dblack's job as a lefties who support and defend censorship, is to continue presenting ANY path or plausible path that suggests that the censorship is either ok or not happening. That's what you will continue to do.

I dispute it. The state provides no material support to any of the companies we are discussing and does not make the final decision regarding any decisions with them.

That’s not sponsorship by any definition.

 

[EvMetro]

If you had an example of me suggesting that state sponsored censorship is ok, you'd post the quote. But you don't. Only the opposite. Only your imagination. Only your lies.

You don't have to come right out and say that it is ok. You can just deny that it is happening, kinda like colfax_m in post 146. Running interference is support. Derailing the thread is support. Justifying other forms of censorship as a strawman is support.

 

[colfax_m]

You don't have to come right out and say that it is ok. You can just deny that it is happening, kinda like colfax_m in post 146. Running interference is support. Derailing the thread is support. Justifying other forms of censorship as a strawman is support.

What does “running interference” mean?

 

[dblack]

You don't have to come right out and say that it is ok. You can just deny that it is happening ...

And where am I doing that? (again, nothing)

The pattern is so predictable. I point out your hypocrisy, you feel obligated to attack me so you just reach for your stock bag of insults and accusations - even though they are wildly off the mark and bear no resemblance to reality. But Trumpsters don't really do "reality", do they?

 

[EvMetro]

And where am I doing that?

That was in reference to your comrade. You have already pivoted to Trump like lefties do. There is not a censorship thread on this site where you don't justify, support, or defend political censorship.

 

[dblack]

That was in reference to your comrade. You have already pivoted to Trump like lefties do. There is not a censorship thread on this site where you don't justify, support, or defend political censorship.

And still no quotes. Because you're lying through your rotted Trumpster teeth. Doesn't it embarrass you?

 

[EvMetro]

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

Here is a quote. "Should be forced" is a red herring and a strawman. Nothing to do with government sponsored censorship. Protecting the government censorship that this thread is about by derailing the thread with a strawman.

 

[dblack]

Here is a quote. "Should be forced" is a red herring and a strawman. Nothing to do with government sponsored censorship. Protecting the government censorship that this thread is about by derailing the thread with a strawman.

Still nothing?

 

[EvMetro]

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

Here is a quote. "Should be forced" is a red herring and a strawman. Nothing to do with government sponsored censorship. Protecting the government censorship that this thread is about by derailing the thread with a strawman.

 

[dblack]

Here is a quote. "Should be forced" is a red herring and a strawman. Nothing to do with government sponsored censorship. Protecting the government censorship that this thread is about by derailing the thread with a strawman.

Huh? This is dumb even by your standards. That's not supporting government sponsored censorship. I've been very clear that I oppose it.

I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, your stupidity, your lack of ability to even understand the topic. I can see why you'd want to write that off as "derailing the thread" - but it's not. It's just showing that you're wrong. That you don't even understand the basic concepts involved. You're just another idiot partisan trumpsucker.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Epoctimes

Its spelled "Epoch" you dimwit

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

again, you must be deaf.

Moonglow is a lowlife degenerate

 

[Moonglow]

Its spelled "Epoch" you dimwit

Still doesn't make it a reliable source for truth.

 

[jc456]

Still doesn't make it a reliable source for truth.

disagree. you don't retain that authority to be the judge of what is and isn't.

 

[Moonglow]

disagree. you don't retain that authority to be the judge of what is and isn't.

We all do-duh..