• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge blocks Texas social media 'censorship' law

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
25,657
Reaction score
21,184
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Most of the time when conservatives clamor for "freedom of speech," what they are actually doing is trying to obliterate other people's freedom of association. There are huge issues going on in the realm of big tech and social media, but you can always count on the right to ignore all the real issues and make everything about their perceived victimhood.


A federal judge on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction against a Texas law that prohibits large social media companies from banning users or blocking posts based on their political viewpoints.

HB 20, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Sept. 9, targets companies with at least 50 million monthly users in the US, including Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube, and would also allow residents of the state to sue companies for reinstatement of accounts. The law, billed by the governor's office as protecting Texans "from wrongful censorship on social media platforms," was set to take effect Thursday.
 
The republicans for all of their talk of smaller less intrusive government, do exactly the opposite.

What I think they are saying is it's ok to yell fire in a crowded theater and anyone who tries to stop them should be sued? Am I getting that correctly?
 
What really big thing throughout the entire history of the United States have conservatives won?

It wasn't slavery. It's wasn't keeping women/blacks from voting. It wasn't civil rights. It's wasn't prohibition.

So what was it. Just name one huge thing.
 
The republicans for all of their talk of smaller less intrusive government, do exactly the opposite.

What I think they are saying is it's ok to yell fire in a crowded theater and anyone who tries to stop them should be sued? Am I getting that correctly?
It's more akin to saying that you don't have the right to remove someone from your house if they are engaged in exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

In other words: Another person's freedom of speech outweighs your right to your property.
 
Most of the time when conservatives clamor for "freedom of speech," what they are actually doing is trying to obliterate other people's freedom of association. There are huge issues going on in the realm of big tech and social media, but you can always count on the right to ignore all the real issues and make everything about their perceived victimhood.

Are Texas legislators doing ANYTHING that actually makes a difference in the day-to-day lives of its citizens? Like maybe health care, education, housing, transportation...? SMDH
 
What really big thing throughout the entire history of the United States have conservatives won?

It wasn't slavery. It's wasn't keeping women/blacks from voting. It wasn't civil rights. It's wasn't prohibition.

Wrong. It was conservatives who argued that people have the right to drink if they choose, while progressives pushed the idea that the decision to drink should be made by the government for the common good. Alcohol prohibition was from 1920 to 1933 - which was right in the progressive era.
 
The republicans for all of their talk of smaller less intrusive government, do exactly the opposite.

What I think they are saying is it's ok to yell fire in a crowded theater and anyone who tries to stop them should be sued? Am I getting that correctly?
You can bank on everything a Republican claims as being the opposite of what he really wants. They have made a living off of lying about their true aims and interests for at least 50 years. The latest lie is that vaccine mandates are "unConstitutional" when in fact they have been declared Constitutional by the Supreme court for over 100 years. This lie is but another example of how the GOP always chooses culture wars over the good of the nation.


Not Breaking News: Mandatory Vaccination Has Been Constitutional for Over a Century

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...n-has-been-constitutional-for-over-a-century/
 
Wrong. It was conservatives who argued that people have the right to drink if they choose
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:


yeah, all those conservative religious folks and conservative women were totally liberal about juke joints and speakeasies and getting hammered on the juice.


:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
You can bank on everything a Republican claims as being the opposite of what he really wants. They have made a living off of lying about their true aims and interests for at least 50 years. The latest lie is that vaccine mandates are "unConstitutional" when in fact they have been declared Constitutional by the Supreme court for over 100 years.

Not Breaking News: Mandatory Vaccination Has Been Constitutional for Over a Century

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...n-has-been-constitutional-for-over-a-century/
Never let facts get in the way of the lie you are telling. An ability trump has mastered and many of his base practice.
 
Wrong. It was conservatives who argued that people have the right to drink if they choose, while progressives pushed the idea that the decision to drink should be made by the government for the common good. Alcohol prohibition was from 1920 to 1933 - which was right in the progressive era.
Your historic analysis is underwhelming.
 
It's more akin to saying that you don't have the right to remove someone from your house if they are engaged in exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

In other words: Another person's freedom of speech outweighs your right to your property.
I'd just say forcing someone to be on your private platform (despite them, say, having gotten banned due to not adhering to your community standards) is an abridgement of YOUR free speech rights.
 
Wrong. It was conservatives who argued that people have the right to drink if they choose, while progressives pushed the idea that the decision to drink should be made by the government for the common good. Alcohol prohibition was from 1920 to 1933 - which was right in the progressive era.
Lmao I'm sure those are the same conservatives on the front lines of weed and prostitution legalization.
 
Are Texas legislators doing ANYTHING that actually makes a difference in the day-to-day lives of its citizens? Like maybe health care, education, housing, transportation...? SMDH

How about electrical grid reliability.. That would be my first choice...
 
Lmao I'm sure those are the same conservatives on the front lines of weed and prostitution legalization.

All drugs should be legal, not just weed, and I can name you many right wingers who support full legalization of all drugs including the late Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell, and many others. Can you name me even one prominent left winger who supports the legalization of all drugs? Even Trump supported legalization of all drugs at one time:

trump on drugs.png
 
Are Texas legislators doing ANYTHING that actually makes a difference in the day-to-day lives of its citizens? Like maybe health care, education, housing, transportation...? SMDH

It is interesting that your list of "doing anything" is all stuff that would ultimately limit rights for everyone.
 
Most of the time when conservatives clamor for "freedom of speech," what they are actually doing is trying to obliterate other people's freedom of association. There are huge issues going on in the realm of big tech and social media, but you can always count on the right to ignore all the real issues and make everything about their perceived victimhood.


So you don't understand what the legislation did, did you? Because the legislation is supposed to preserve free speech on public platforms.
 
Wrong. It was conservatives who argued that people have the right to drink if they choose, while progressives pushed the idea that the decision to drink should be made by the government for the common good. Alcohol prohibition was from 1920 to 1933 - which was right in the progressive era.
To be fair to the misguided Prohibitionists, some were inspired by women activists who saw and experienced the kind of spousal abuse that they felt alcohol caused. And a progressive, FDR, campaigned to end prohibition and started the ball rolling to do so. And it seems that republicans controlled Congress thru much of the 1920s.
 
What really big thing throughout the entire history of the United States have conservatives won?

It wasn't slavery. It's wasn't keeping women/blacks from voting. It wasn't civil rights. It's wasn't prohibition.

So what was it. Just name one huge thing.


Looks like they're about to win a colossal reversal of women's reproductive rights.
 
There is no limit to the love and worship of Democrats of the richest white racist men on earth. I think many Democrats have prayer closets where they pay to their mega billionaire big tech gods. With the Democratic Party now being the National Corporate-Fascist party, they will continue to be their Brown Shirts until their mega billionaire gods have everything and total control of everyone. OF COURSE they want their billionaire elite gods to dictate what everyone may and may not say.
 
So you don't understand what the legislation did, did you? Because the legislation is supposed to preserve free speech on public platforms.
You dont have such rights on a privately owned platform that also likes to act as a publisher but never openly states they love to have their cake and eat it too.
 
So you don't understand what the legislation did, did you? Because the legislation is supposed to preserve free speech on public platforms.

That wasn't what it did though. It would have applied not to publically-owned government platforms, but to private sector platforms with at least 50 million monthly users.

Even if you have 50 million customers in your bar, you still have the right to 86 a belligerent drunk.
 
So you don't understand what the legislation did, did you? Because the legislation is supposed to preserve free speech on public platforms.

There is no right to free speech on private platforms.
 
All drugs should be legal, not just weed, and I can name you many right wingers who support full legalization of all drugs including the late Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Thomas Sowell, and many others. Can you name me even one prominent left winger who supports the legalization of all drugs? Even Trump supported legalization of all drugs at one time:

View attachment 67363335
Legalization of all drugs is more a libertarian stance than a conservative one. You fail again.
 
Back
Top Bottom