A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech

[bongsaway]

Yes, it is. More specifically, it's censorship I agreed to when I acknowledged the terms of use of this site. What it is not is government censorship.

And BTW, that you need this explained to you does not speak well for your understanding of these issues.

You try and try and try to insult me, I laugh, keep it up. Can you give me an example of government censorship other than Republicans banning books.

 

[Questerr]

And Tim Walz has shown us his true colors. Very few are talking about his COVID hotline.

MSN

“Along with putting in place mask mandates, the governor also instituted a hotline number for people to report those violating social distancing guidelines. ”

The Stasi in East Germany perfected the system of neighborhood snitches.

What he should have done instead is what Texas has done: passed a law letting people sue people who don't social distance and get $10K. Nothing "Stasi" about that right?

 

[beefheart]

"Moist" LOLOL What the f are you on about?

It's someone who can't write their own material. It's almost cute.

 

[bongsaway]

And you can thank the Dobbs majority for returning that right to you.

Total crap. It's the GOP conservative leadership that wants abortion banned, not the people and we all know it. Before the supreme court overturned Roe, almost seventy percent of Americans didn't want it overturned. As more proof, every state that has given its citizens the opportunity to vote on the abortion issue, every state has kept it. Now, you want to tell me again it's the average person who wanted roe overturned or was it conservative Republicans in power? Republicans in general don't do what's good for we the people just like this is one of their pet peeves, not the people.

 

[bongsaway]

No, the people who post here know that if they don't follow forum rules, (100% different from protected first amendment rights, btw), they will rightfully face consequences. It has nothing to do with what Walz falsely claimed. Walz said and I quote, "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy." He is for government censorship. Way different than the forum administrating their own rules for its participants.




I've elaborated in my comments above.

What in particular is the government stopping you from saying? I'm sure you have thousands of examples, right?

 

[JasperL]

No, the people who post here know that if they don't follow forum rules, (100% different from protected first amendment rights, btw), they will rightfully face consequences. It has nothing to do with what Walz falsely claimed. Walz said and I quote, "There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy." He is for government censorship. Way different than the forum administrating their own rules for its participants.

Everyone can see that quote in context here.



The context is lies about elections, and I don't think there is a constitutional right to spread lies about elections - when, where, who can vote, how. And even then the 'remedy' is for platforms to remove that kind of content, not arrest and jail those spreading those lies.

So, again: "Censors how? Can you point me to a plan by Walz or the Harris 'government' to censor me if I criticize Harris or Walz?"

 

[bongsaway]

Aw, isn't the little zygote cute?

My fetus is better looking.

 

[NatMorton]

Total crap. It's the GOP conservative leadership that wants abortion banned, not the people and we all know it.

Then why didn't the Robert's court do what the Burger court did: impose their side's preferred abortion law on all fifty states?

 

[soap box]

Isn't it fun when the globalists who are saving our democracy tell us we can no longer say what we think as they cram a candidate down our throat who nobody voted for?

Gerald Ford was president for two years and no one outside of a Congressional district in Michigan voted for him. In 76 he was the incumbent , but it's impossible to say he was running for reelection. I wanted Jeffries but Im for Harris now. Big whoo.

If they had nominated Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) do you think the Dems would have been happier?

 

[JasperL]

Yes, it is. More specifically, it's censorship I agreed to when I acknowledged the terms of use of this site. What it is not is government censorship.

And BTW, that you need this explained to you does not speak well for your understanding of these issues.

And the 'speech codes' you referenced at those private universities weren't "government" censorship either, and yet you objected to them. So you're OK with private censorship sometimes, like on DP, but not other times?

 

[bongsaway]

Then why didn't the Robert's court do what the Burger court did: impose their side's preferred abortion law on all fifty states?

Why are you asking me about the robert's court, I'm not Robert or one of his court jesters.

 

[CaughtInThe]

What a confused ginger that one is.

Or he has women in his life that he loves.

You have daughters or granddaughters?

 

[NatMorton]

And the 'speech codes' you referenced at those private universities weren't "government" censorship either, and yet you objected to them. So you're OK with private censorship sometimes, like on DP, but not other times?

I agree, those speech codes are not government censorship. I cite them as the kind of censorship the Progressive left would like to see government impose.

 

[NatMorton]

Why are you asking me about the robert's court, I'm not Robert or one of his court jesters.

I'm asking you a question that, were an honest answer given, would explain why your assertion about the court's conservative majority is wrong.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Umm…. No.

Because it is a matter of established law that deliberately lying to do harm (yelling fire in a crowded theater where no such fire exists), fraud (libel/slander in pretending to be another and attributing false statements to them) is illegal.

Biden’s administration isn’t reinventing the wheel here. It’s seeking accountability of the transmitters of the fraudulent and slanderous to be responsible for their actions.

Actually, the often asserted claim that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is unprotected speech is wrong.

“The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).”

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Even Associate Justice Alito, who absolutely should know better, got it wrong when giving a speech to fellow far right wing turds at Heritage gathering.

Yes, you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater

SCOTUS Justice Alito recently repeated the common misconception that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" is unprotected speech.

reason.com

 

[JasperL]

And you can thank the Dobbs majority for returning that right to you.

Great, the Dobbs majority returned to us the 'right' to vote on the rights of pregnant women, to make their own reproductive choices. It's an odd way to frame the issue.

In Idaho, as we've discussed on the forum, women no longer have the 'right' to make their own reproductive healthcare choices. If they need an abortion to e.g. prevent permanent harm to themselves, such as infertility, TOO BAD!!! That's because Idaho put those rights up to a vote and the vote removed rights from women to make those choices. The legislature and local DAs and perhaps doctors get to make the call, and women are bystanders. FREEDOM!!!

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Aw, isn't the little zygote cute?

 

[JasperL]

Then why didn't the Robert's court do what the Burger court did: impose their side's preferred abortion law on all fifty states?

Well, that 'preferred abortion law' as you put it provided women the 'right' to make their own choices, which is the essence of freedom. The court didn't require or encourage or discourage abortion or prohibit abortion, it simply said women have the 'right' to make their own choices in consultation with their loved ones, doctors.

So it's weird to say the Burger court "imposed" when it didn't impose ANYTHING on women at all. It freed them, provided them reproductive autonomy. It's the abortion bans that "impose" the decisions of the state on ALL women in that state, and by doing so remove choices from women.

 

[NatMorton]

Great, the Dobbs majority returned to us the 'right' to vote on the rights of pregnant women, to make their own reproductive choices. It's an odd way to frame the issue.

It's not an odd way. It's the correct way. The Supreme Court lacks the authority to impose an abortion law standard on the states. The right for states and their voters to choose the abortion laws that they think best was stripped away in 1973. This court restored that right, and I couldn't be more pleased.

 

[bongsaway]

I'm asking you a question that, were an honest answer given, would explain why your assertion about the court's conservative majority is wrong.

Honest? Seriously? Are you honestly trying to tell me overturning roe was only to give it back to the states and not to punish women? Roe stood for fifty years, was challenged before and considered settled law, but not to conservatives. Yes, conservatives overturned Roe not because of law but to punish women who want to get an abortion, they just didn't figure the people didn't want it because they had convinced themselves they did. Republican leadership is shit.

 

[NatMorton]

Well, that 'preferred abortion law' as you put it provided women the 'right' to make their own choices, which is the essence of freedom.

Which was never true even under Roe. A mother lost that federally protected right after the second trimester.

 

[NatMorton]

Honest? Seriously? Are you honestly trying to tell me overturning roe was only to give it back to the states and not to punish women? Roe stood for fifty years, was challenged before and considered settled law, but not to conservatives. Yes, conservatives overturned Roe not because of law but to punish women who want to get an abortion, they just didn't figure the people didn't want it because they had convinced themselves they did. Republican leadership is shit.

Plessy stood for longer. Bad law doesn't get better with age.

As voters, we all get to choose now. That's democracy. Are you ready for it?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Isn't it fun when the globalists who are saving our democracy tell us we can no longer say what we think as they cram a candidate down our throat who nobody voted for?

This turd of an argument has already been debunked.

Try to keep up with the latest bogus MAGAt arguments.

 

[JasperL]

I agree, those speech codes are not government censorship. I cite them as the kind of censorship the Progressive left would like to see government impose.

Like the kind of censorship Tennessee did impose that banned public drag shows, or those censorship policies the state of Florida did impose by banning books in public schools?

And, again, you support censorship, which we know because you're active here, on a place that censors. So you're for right wing censorship but not that imposed by the left, or what is the principle?

Do you also not see the danger of censorship by Trump, who is the only one I know who's directly called for punishing media outlets that are critical of him? He's done that repeatedly, but it's the left you're worried about?

 

[bongsaway]

I agree, those speech codes are not government censorship. I cite them as the kind of censorship the Progressive left would like to see government impose.

See government impose, you dreamed that up all by yourself didn't you?