- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 25,773
- Reaction score
- 21,433
- Location
- Fort Drum, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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.
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.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?
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...? SMDHMost 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.
Federal judge blocks Texas social media 'censorship' law
The law would ban companies like Facebook and Twitter from blocking content based on political viewpoints.www.cnet.com
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.
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.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?
Wrong. It was conservatives who argued that people have the right to drink if they choose
Never let facts get in the way of the lie you are telling. An ability trump has mastered and many of his base practice.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/
Obviously the judge must be a flaming liberal.Awwww...the judge "censored" the law.
Your historic analysis is underwhelming.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.
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.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.
Lmao I'm sure those are the same conservatives on the front lines of weed and prostitution legalization.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.
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
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
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.
Federal judge blocks Texas social media 'censorship' law
The law would ban companies like Facebook and Twitter from blocking content based on political viewpoints.www.cnet.com
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.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.
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.
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.
So you don't understand what the legislation did, did you? Because the legislation is supposed to preserve free speech on public platforms.
So you don't understand what the legislation did, did you? Because the legislation is supposed to preserve free speech on public platforms.
Legalization of all drugs is more a libertarian stance than a conservative one. You fail again.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?