• 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

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.
Business open to the public are not the same a residence
 
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.

It didn't ban banning. It prevented targeted supression of speech. Case in point, the big three in social media blocked all discussion of the theory that Covid came from the Wuhan Institute. Now, that theory has a lot of traction and the support for blocking the theory was revealed as a hoax perpetrated by the company that funded the Wuhan Institute with NIH money.

We are lucky that that lie didn't survive. But what lie will social media support in the future that does survive?

P.s. Oh, another good example is Hunter Biden's laptop. That story was surpressed by social media and might have changed the election.
 
Can you name me even one prominent left winger who supports the legalization of all drugs?
Not an individual, but does an entire state count?

Edit: If you want an individual, Vaush is the most prominent leftist I can think of that argues for drug decriminalization. I know Bernie does to some extent. I can't remember if he goes as far as all drugs being legal.
 
Last edited:
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
You've named a bunch of libertarians, or in Buckley's case, a conservative approaching the issue from a libertarian perspective. Almost all the drug legalization efforts and criminal justice reform in this country comes from the left.

Conservatives, with their bullshit protestant evangelical puritan values are the main reason why Europe, a primarily secular continent, is way forward of us on all these issues.

The only state thus far in the Union to legalize all drugs is Oregon. And it sure as ****ing hell didn't happen there because of the right.

None of Trump's rhetoric on this issue can be taken seriously. Especially with all his "law and order" stances on crime. The man literally praised planned parenthood and then went out of his way to nominate some of the most egregiously anti abortion SCOTUS justices, as we can see now.
 
It didn't ban banning. It prevented targeted supression of speech. Case in point, the big three in social media blocked all discussion of the theory that Covid came from the Wuhan Institute. Now, that theory has a lot of traction and the support for blocking the theory was revealed as a hoax perpetrated by the company that funded the Wuhan Institute with NIH money.

We are lucky that that lie didn't survive. But what lie will social media support in the future that does survive?

P.s. Oh, another good example is Hunter Biden's laptop. That story was suppressed by social media and might have changed the election.

It doesn't matter.

Head into your Tiffany & Co and start yelling to everyone in the store about how Covid was created in a Wuhan Lab. See what happens. Tiffany & Co has the right to remove you from their store. You might think that Tiffany & Co is suppressing your 1st Amendment rights, but you would be wrong. The first amendment restricts what kinds of laws the government can pass. It doesn't entitle you to use Tiffany & Co as a platform for your nonsense.
 
It doesn't matter.

Head into your Tiffany & Co and start yelling to everyone in the store about how Covid was created in a Wuhan Lab. See what happens. Tiffany & Co has the right to remove you from their store. You might think that Tiffany & Co is suppressing your 1st Amendment rights, but you would be wrong. The first amendment restricts what kinds of laws the government can pass. It doesn't entitle you to use Tiffany & Co as a platform for your nonsense.
Tiffany and Company isn't in the business of promoting speech either. But good job knocking down that straw-man.
 
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.
Correct. As usual, Republicans are in favor of freedom of speech only when it benefits them politically.
 
Business open to the public are not the same a residence
Granted. But do I have the constitutionally protected right to walk into your business that is open to the public with a megaphone and a sign reading "Republicans are White Supremacists?" Should the government legally bar you from having me removed from your premises, since I am engaged in constitutionally protected speech?
 
It's topsy turvy that people who want us to believe they are the protectors of the Constitution somehow feel that private companies should be forced to treat conspiracy theorists like protected classes that they have to give free access to. And these are people who treat "capitalism" like a holy word ... but now they're selectively against all the segments of capitalism which have hurt Trump's feelings.
 
You've named a bunch of libertarians, or in Buckley's case, a conservative approaching the issue from a libertarian perspective.

Yes, because the "libertarian perspective" is the far right perspective.

The only state thus far in the Union to legalize all drugs is Oregon.

Um, Oregon has not even come close to legalizing all drugs.
 
Not an individual, but does an entire state count?

Edit: If you want an individual, Vaush is the most prominent leftist I can think of that argues for drug decriminalization. I know Bernie does to some extent. I can't remember if he goes as far as all drugs being legal.

Decriminalizing is not even close to legalization. You could legally have booze in your home during alcohol prohibition. In fact, in the months prior to the passage of the volstead act, people stocked up with as much booze and beer as they could afford.
 
Decriminalizing is not even close to legalization. You could legally have booze in your home during alcohol prohibition. In fact, in the months prior to the passage of the volstead act, people stocked up with as much booze and beer as they could afford.
Hold up, isn't decriminalizing a more extreme step than legalizing? Something being legal means there are still laws regarding its use. States with legalized weed for example. Doesn't decriminalizing imply that you aren't regulating it in any way?
 
Neither is social media. They "allow" speech, they don't "promote" speech.
So when Twitter says that their mission is to "To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers", they aren't promoting free speech? Hmmm

Well, what about when Facebook says their mission is to "share and express what matters to them." Isn't that promoting free speech?
 
Hold up, isn't decriminalizing a more extreme step than legalizing?

No, because under decriminalization people still go to prison for producing, buying, selling, and transporting the decriminalized drug. Under legalization, the state still puts people in prison for violating its endless "regulations", but nothing like the decriminalized scenario. Only a free market in drugs does the rotten, miserable state stop putting adults in prison for drug "crimes".
 
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.

The law is clearly unconstitutional.

While government may not compel or restrict speech, they also cannot tell others what speech they may or may not allow.

If Twitter and Facebook want to establish themselves as a web service for hardcore anti-American leftist extremists by banning conservatives, they most certainly have that constitutionally protected right. No conservative has a Twitter or Facebook account, and those who claim they do are obviously lying leftist filth.
 
Back
Top Bottom