|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:02:14 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with what I want - it is the legal standard I am looking at. It is not about ownership it is about how they behave to exclude people from a free-speech platform. It is whether the company is acting like the government, which is impermissible. Is the private company acting like a state or government actor. No.Trump has lost 0 freedoms. He can go to a third-party website, he can create his own website, there is thousands of different things he can do to get his message out there. But he can’t post it on Twitter or Facebook. Also, Twitter never promised anyone free speech on their platform. Nay - nay - Twitter disagrees with his viewpoint - and that is a no-no. No one gets to throw you out for your opinion. That is why we have 1A. Jack and Zuck are punks.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:03:12 GMT -5
Inciting violence is also a federal crime, punishable by law. 18 code 373. Calling such an action an opinion is arguable.
Trump may have bigger problems than Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 20:09:52 GMT -5
It sounds like you just don’t like capitalism. And I’m right with you there. No - I am for capitalism and free marketplace. It is the censorship that flows from a private company using the internet which is sort of a federal thing - interstate communication. I have the opposite point of view as you do then apparently. I believe that a private Internet company should be treated just like a regular company. If you open a restaurant, and I go in there and begin harassing your workers and my fellow customers, you have all the right in the world to kick me out. Likewise, if you create a social media platform on the Internet, and you have terms and conditions and I break them, you have all the right in the world to kick me off. And if this is a problem with the fact that it was the president who was kicked off Twitter, it should be known that he already had special privileges. Someone did an experiment starting in May 2020, where they created a Twitter account, and copied and paste it exactly what the president wrote. That account was suspended four times for inciting violence and false information between May 2020 and January 4, 2021. In that exact same amount of time, with the exact same content, Trump was suspended zero times. www.huffpost.com/entry/better-late-than-never-suspendthepres-twitter-trump_n_5ff9e3bfc5b691806c498ceb
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:10:21 GMT -5
No - I am for capitalism and free marketplace. It is the censorship that flows from a private company using the internet which is sort of a federal thing - interstate communication. Using the internet or not, any business entity has to have a purpose and should be allowed to regulate that purpose as they see fit. If the internet is truly open and free, then this is a part of that business’s freedom and you are free to go elsewhere or start your own internet business. No - aren't we talking about a restaurant that has a dress code - which is a business food and beverage with a victualers license? The restaurant business sets that rule (within reason) - a standard would be "reasonableness." Speech is regulated and protected. It is regulated, under the 1A. Twitter uses (that water pipe that can't tell you whether you can use the water to cook or to shower) internet that crosses state lines - that makes it a federal problem. Section 230 is a federal regulation which gave them immunity - maybe they should not have that exemption - that is the issue. The problem is that they are cops or become cops - just like at a police station. They (Zuck or Jack) can pull you over for speeding. They are pulling you over for an opinion with which they don't agree - and that it not permissible under the Constitution. It is an abuse of a privilege. Right now - I'm listening to one of my favorite legal scholars - Mark Levin, a constitutional "originalist."
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 20:12:22 GMT -5
It sounds like what you want is for these big tech companies to be owned by the state instead of being private entities. I don’t know about you, but I call that communism. “Selective Communism” New term I mean, that’s kind of what it is. I’m more of a social Democrat, I believe in capitalism with selective socialism in specific areas.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:14:57 GMT -5
I’m betting some of these sacred laws we are being lectured about are going to change. Let’s not forget that laws are fluid. We are in different times. Mass violence being instigated via social media will likely cause new laws that Filledeplage can then quote back to us.
Mark Levin? Lol Says it all.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:16:37 GMT -5
Inciting violence is also a federal crime, punishable by law. 18 code 373. Calling such an action an opinion is arguable. Trump may have bigger problems than Twitter. It is alleged. I listened to him telling supporters to go peacefully. Alex Jones said exactly the same things. He said something like - we are going there - to the Capitol - but "we are the peaceful side," not looking for them to get set up. They knew Antifa was there, trying to blend in with Maga gear. Dershowitz says they have no case - when you listen to his speech. They are blowing smoke. Political theater. Twitter has the problem I would say - controlling opinions over internet lines that go across state lines. Acting like a cop, when they didn't go to the police academy.
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 20:17:00 GMT -5
No.Trump has lost 0 freedoms. He can go to a third-party website, he can create his own website, there is thousands of different things he can do to get his message out there. But he can’t post it on Twitter or Facebook. Also, Twitter never promised anyone free speech on their platform. Nay - nay - Twitter disagrees with his viewpoint - and that is a no-no. No one gets to throw you out for your opinion. That is why we have 1A. Jack and Zuck are punks. They did not ban Trump because of his views. If Twitter is just banning people who are right wing because their right wing, then please explain to me how Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Mike Pence, Sean Hannity, And thousands of other right wing figures are still allowed to have accounts. They banned Trump for the same reason they banned several Q anon accounts, because he’s getting people hurt.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:17:21 GMT -5
I’m betting some of these sacred laws we are being lectured about are going to change. Let’s not forget that laws are fluid. We are in different times. Mass violence been instigated via social media will likely cause new laws that Filledeplage can then quote back to us. Mark Levin? Lol Says it all. The reason I like him is because I believe in "originalism" with respect to the Constitution. Individual rights, limited government. I don't want the feds controlling my life. Are you judging me?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:18:28 GMT -5
Inciting violence is also a federal crime, punishable by law. 18 code 373. Calling such an action an opinion is arguable. Trump may have bigger problems than Twitter. It is alleged. I listened to him telling supporters to go peacefully. Alex Jones said exactly the same things. He said something like - we are going there - to the Capitol - but "we are the peaceful side," not looking for them to get set up. They knew Antifa was there, trying to blend in with Maga gear. Dershowitz says they have no case - when you listen to his speech. They are blowing smoke. Political theater. Twitter has the problem I would say - controlling opinions over internet lines that go across state lines. Acting like a cop, when they didn't go to the police academy. Was brilliant of ANTIFA members to grow huge beer guts overnight and neckbeards and racist tattoos etc etc. Good one! You are being led astray by very dangerous people. And I’m not judging you. I merely stating my opinion. You’re suddenly sensitive about opinions?
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 20:21:27 GMT -5
I’m betting some of these sacred laws we are being lectured about are going to change. Let’s not forget that laws are fluid. We are in different times. Mass violence been instigated via social media will likely cause new laws that Filledeplage can then quote back to us. Mark Levin? Lol Says it all. The reason I like him is because I believe in "originalism" with respect to the Constitution. Are you judging me? Interesting fact, Thomas Jefferson once said “ every constitution then, and every law naturally expires at the end of 19 years.”
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:23:07 GMT -5
It is alleged. I listened to him telling supporters to go peacefully. Alex Jones said exactly the same things. He said something like - we are going there - to the Capitol - but "we are the peaceful side," not looking for them to get set up. They knew Antifa was there, trying to blend in with Maga gear. Dershowitz says they have no case - when you listen to his speech. They are blowing smoke. Political theater. Twitter has the problem I would say - controlling opinions over internet lines that go across state lines. Acting like a cop, when they didn't go to the police academy. Was brilliant of ANTIFA members to grow huge beer guts overnight and neckbeards and racists tattoos etc etc. Good one! You are being led astray by very dangerous people. And I’m not judging you. I merely stating my opinion. Those guys who scaled those walls - were trained and consistent with Antifa para-military training. A beer gut and beard is a stereotype - that is kind of intolerant. I respect the people who grow the food, that feeds the cities even though I live in a city. I know they sacrifice and do a lot of physical labor, tending to animals, hoping the crops get enough rain, and they should not be judged by their fashion sense (or lack therof - if that is your opinion.)
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:24:28 GMT -5
Was brilliant of ANTIFA members to grow huge beer guts overnight and neckbeards and racists tattoos etc etc. Good one! You are being led astray by very dangerous people. And I’m not judging you. I merely stating my opinion. Those guys who scaled those walls - were trained and consistent with Antifa para-military training. A beer gut and beard is a stereotype - that is kind of intolerant. I respect the people who grow the food, that feeds the cities even though I live in a city. I know they sacrifice and do a lot of physical labor, tending to animals, hoping the crops get enough rain, and they should not be judged by their fashion sense (or lack therof - if that is your opinion.) A highly visible stereotype that managed to actually transcend such a term. Nor did I stereotype them as farmers. You are the one who did that. And I’ve scaled walls like that myself and I’m neither a Nazi or ANTIFA. You are greatly reaching. And I have the right to offer stereotypes as my opinion dictates. Do you truly not see the gaping hole you are digging yourself into?
|
|
|
Post by #JusticeForDonGoldberg on Jan 10, 2021 20:25:47 GMT -5
I’m betting some of these sacred laws we are being lectured about are going to change. Let’s not forget that laws are fluid. We are in different times. Mass violence being instigated via social media will likely cause new laws that Filledeplage can then quote back to us. Mark Levin? Lol Says it all. The constitution hasn’t been amended since 1992. The world was a very, very different place in 1992, so I hope that we see some updates to that bad boy soon. I can already think of at least five different amendments that are long overdue to be added, some of which have already been written
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:30:37 GMT -5
It is alleged. I listened to him telling supporters to go peacefully. Alex Jones said exactly the same things. He said something like - we are going there - to the Capitol - but "we are the peaceful side," not looking for them to get set up. They knew Antifa was there, trying to blend in with Maga gear. Dershowitz says they have no case - when you listen to his speech. They are blowing smoke. Political theater. Twitter has the problem I would say - controlling opinions over internet lines that go across state lines. Acting like a cop, when they didn't go to the police academy. Was brilliant of ANTIFA members to grow huge beer guts overnight and neckbeards and racist tattoos etc etc. Good one! You are being led astray by very dangerous people. And I’m not judging you. I merely stating my opinion. You’re suddenly sensitive about opinions? No - I'm not sensitive - just asking. And I did go to law school - so I know the standards, that have to be examined. When they taught constitutional law - we were given two ways of looking at it - because the professor was open minded even though a huge liberal, but tolerant - and I preferred the close look at the Constitution, of originalism. And that would contrast to looking at it as outliving its usefulness. With "originalism" get to have an amendment that is rigorously debated in the public square and voted on. Twitter and FB are supposed to be the "public square." They are both tyrants, in my opinion. And have crossed the line of our rights. I think of Voltaire - his great tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:33:07 GMT -5
Was brilliant of ANTIFA members to grow huge beer guts overnight and neckbeards and racist tattoos etc etc. Good one! You are being led astray by very dangerous people. And I’m not judging you. I merely stating my opinion. You’re suddenly sensitive about opinions? No - I'm not sensitive - just asking. And I did go to law school - so I know the standards, that have to be examined. When they taught constitutional law - we were given two ways of looking at it - because the professor was open minded even though a huge liberal, but tolerant - and I preferred the close look at the Constitution, of originalism. And that would contrast to looking at it as outliving its usefulness. With "originalism" get to have an amendment that is rigorously debated in the public square and voted on. Twitter and FB are supposed to be the "public square." They are both tyrants, in my opinion. And have crossed the line of our rights. I think of Voltaire - his great tolerance. I’m sorry, but Twitter and Facebook are no more supposed to be “the public square” than the local strip joint. Come on! Wouldn’t filing a lawsuit be a better way to communicate this rage than arguing with a bunch of Beach Boys nuts?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:41:26 GMT -5
No - I'm not sensitive - just asking. And I did go to law school - so I know the standards, that have to be examined. When they taught constitutional law - we were given two ways of looking at it - because the professor was open minded even though a huge liberal, but tolerant - and I preferred the close look at the Constitution, of originalism. And that would contrast to looking at it as outliving its usefulness. With "originalism" get to have an amendment that is rigorously debated in the public square and voted on. Twitter and FB are supposed to be the "public square." They are both tyrants, in my opinion. And have crossed the line of our rights. I think of Voltaire - his great tolerance. I’m sorry, but Twitter and Facebook are no more supposed to be “the public square” than the local strip joint. Come on! Wouldn’t filing a lawsuit be a better way to communicate this rage than arguing with a bunch of Beach Boys nuts? BB "nuts?" - It all crosses over. BB nuts have an innate interest in music, (many are musicians) lyrics, trends, etc., but their rights - are sort of in the mix in this digital age. No one in the 60s anticipated that vinyl tracks would get transferred invisibly in a science fiction type scheme. I suspect that there will be a lot of debate about immunity for these large platforms who purport to be the "public square" but who, in actuality are not - and flout their privilege of immunity by censorship of 1A. So Jack and Zuck claim to be the "public square" but they aren't. You debate opinion in the public square - but they don't "agree" with some opinion so they want to exclude them from the public square. They abused their privilege. I don't care if you like him or not. Like Voltaire - it is opinion, divergent or not. If you are not on their team "group think," you are excluded.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:43:51 GMT -5
I’m sorry, but Twitter and Facebook are no more supposed to be “the public square” than the local strip joint. Come on! Wouldn’t filing a lawsuit be a better way to communicate this rage than arguing with a bunch of Beach Boys nuts? BB "nuts?" - It all crosses over. BB nuts have an innate interest in music, (many are musicians) lyrics, trends, etc., but their rights - are sort of in the mix in this digital age. No one in the 60s anticipated that vinyl tracks would get transferred invisibly in a science fiction type scheme. I suspect that there will be a lot of debate about immunity for these large platforms who purport to be the "public square" but who, in actuality are not - and flout their privilege of immunity by censorship of 1A. So Jack and Zuck claim to be the "public square" but they aren't. You debate opinion in the public square - but they don't "agree" with some opinion so they want to exclude them from the public square. They abused their privilege. I don't care if you like him or not. Like Voltaire - it is opinion, divergent or not. If you are not on their team "group think," you are excluded. Ugh ... Facebook and Twitter are not a raised platform in the center of town. Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:45:22 GMT -5
What about when the folks over at the SmileySmile board would permanently ban forum members left and right. How did you feel about that?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:45:29 GMT -5
BB "nuts?" - It all crosses over. BB nuts have an innate interest in music, (many are musicians) lyrics, trends, etc., but their rights - are sort of in the mix in this digital age. No one in the 60s anticipated that vinyl tracks would get transferred invisibly in a science fiction type scheme. I suspect that there will be a lot of debate about immunity for these large platforms who purport to be the "public square" but who, in actuality are not - and flout their privilege of immunity by censorship of 1A. So Jack and Zuck claim to be the "public square" but they aren't. You debate opinion in the public square - but they don't "agree" with some opinion so they want to exclude them from the public square. They abused their privilege. I don't care if you like him or not. Like Voltaire - it is opinion, divergent or not. If you are not on their team "group think," you are excluded. Ugh ... Facebook and Twitter are not a raised platform in the center of town. Jesus Christ. Now - that word "platform" is a metaphor. It is supposed to be the public square - only if you agree.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:46:46 GMT -5
Ugh ... Facebook and Twitter are not a raised platform in the center of town. Jesus Christ. Now - that word "platform" is a metaphor. It is supposed to be the public square - only if you agree. The public square is a piece of land (which someone also likely owns) its not a business enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:46:55 GMT -5
What about when the folks over at the SmileySmile board would permanently ban forum members left and right. How did you feel about that? Well - I'm one of the exiles. Same issue - group think. If you don't agree with their position, you're out!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jan 10, 2021 20:48:13 GMT -5
What about when the folks over at the SmileySmile board would permanently ban forum members left and right. How did you feel about that? Well - I'm one of the exiles. Same issue - group think. If you don't agree with their position, you're out! Ok, so we agree 100% in this case! Fellow exile here! Handshake?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jan 10, 2021 20:49:05 GMT -5
Now - that word "platform" is a metaphor. It is supposed to be the public square - only if you agree. The public square is a piece of land (which someone also likely owns) its not a business enterprise. It is a business enterprise disguised as the "public square." That goes back to the olden days (before I was born) when people would go to an actual town square to debate. They - Zuck and Jack made millions monetizing advertisers while being involved in the exchange of ideas until they got too rich and powerful and wanted to make it an exclusive society with a select group of ideas. They are now part of Davos. That is troubling.
|
|
|
Post by donnylang on Jan 10, 2021 21:02:46 GMT -5
It is alleged. I listened to him telling supporters to go peacefully. Alex Jones said exactly the same things. He said something like - we are going there - to the Capitol - but "we are the peaceful side," not looking for them to get set up. They knew Antifa was there, trying to blend in with Maga gear. Dershowitz says they have no case - when you listen to his speech. They are blowing smoke. Political theater. Twitter has the problem I would say - controlling opinions over internet lines that go across state lines. Acting like a cop, when they didn't go to the police academy. Was brilliant of ANTIFA members to grow huge beer guts overnight and neckbeards and racist tattoos etc etc. Good one! You are being led astray by very dangerous people. And I’m not judging you. I merely stating my opinion. You’re suddenly sensitive about opinions? That Antifa guy posing as Rudy Giuliani was the best though - he looked just like him when he told the crowd “Let’s have trial by combat” before they took to the Capitol. The only way you could tell it wasn’t really Rudy was he didn’t have that weird hair dye dripping down his face.
|
|