Is this ok with you?

[ClaraD]

There actually is a condition that impairs a person's ability to recognize faces (not saying he is being truthful about this, only that it does exist).

Prosopagnosia (face blindness)

Find out about prosopagnosia, a difficulty recognising people's faces. Read about the symptoms, causes and things you can do to help live with it.

www.nhs.uk

Yes, but even then...that would mean he does not know who dropped off the laptop...whether it was Rudy himself or Hunter or someone else, for that matter. He is actually legally blind, so no way he knows who did or didn't bring the laptop to him.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, but even then...that would mean he does not know who dropped off the laptop...whether it was Rudy himself or Hunter or someone else, for that matter. He is actually legally blind, so no way he knows who did or didn't bring the laptop to him.

Oh, I'm not saying it shows he isn't lying or that his story is real (it is highly suspicious). I just wanted to bring up that it could be that he has this condition (or they are alluding to him having it to excuse him not being able to actually identify for potential later legal purposes) that would allow him to be able to work on computers (which takes being able to see pretty well, even if with glasses/contacts) but still unable to be able to "positively identify" who actually dropped off the computer.

 

[Bullseye]

You keep ignoring the point. When can that religious forum ban FSM trolls or delete their posts? If they are just advocating for FSM and 'his' ability to kick the ass of the Christian God, that's free speech, religious free speech! Why should a religious forum get away with trampling on those sacred rights? Or maybe they shouldn't? Who know - it's your plan to put the FCC and Trump for now, AOC when our Glorious Queen is elected, in charge of deciding that for that forum.

And DP's rules are 'arbitrary' in the eyes of the law. Why not allow me to call you names? It is FREE SPEECH and the mods have their jack boots on our necks infringing on our FREE SPEECH right to hurl insults at other people. I'm good with them trampling all over my FREE SPEECH rights, because it's their place, their rules and I enjoy what they have created. If I'm banned 'unfairly' should I sue them? Sue the moderator who did it and the owners since they arbitrarily denied me my free speech right to be a racist troll who insults other DP members?

The point you're making is making up hypotheticals and nonsensical "what ifs". You have not a single notion of the actual topic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't need to have a facebook or any other social media account. As a matter of fact you're statistically less likely to be a douchebag if you don't.

You don't need a cell phone. You don't need internet.

Those who try to censor others based on perceived "need" are the biggest douchebags in the universe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm am totally fine with private companies like Twitter and Facebook enforcing their own terms of service and exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association by obstructing a joint foreign and Trumpian disinformation campaign. Totally, 1000% fine with that.

No doubt 1000% fine with reeducation and forced labor camps for Trump supporters as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Maybe NYP shouldn't publish stories from hacked/stolen emails that violate Twitter's TOS, and that include pretty hilariously doctored email images, which isn't a good sign the underlying emails they didn't validate are actually real. In other words, if NYP wasn't so reckless and irresponsible with this story, and did the bare minimum, then maybe the links wouldn't be banned.

You mean like the Trump tax return story?

Oh, but that's different, because reasons...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Breitbart and the other media of the extreme right do nt share your view. They consistently refuse to publish balanced accounts of events and stories from multiple political perspectives.

So cry me a river...

So you agree that Twitter is a publisher and not a free speech platform as they claim, and should be subject to libel and slander jeopardy for the content they publish?

 

[JasperL]

The point you're making is making up hypotheticals and nonsensical "what ifs". You have not a single notion of the actual topic.

They're not nonsensical what-ifs. The question posed about the religious forum plays out every day, I'm sure hundreds of times per day. Who decides when/what/who/why the owners of that forum can ban trolls, delete their posts? The owners of that forum, OR, the government. That decision has nothing to do with free speech, unless and until the government FORCES that religious forum to advance a particular view point, and "balanced" is a viewpoint. At that point our actual "free speech" rights are dead because what we say through our forums, associations, and on our private property are subject to the approval of the GOVERNMENT.

What's telling is you have no answer because you've not thought through this other than Twitter is mean to Trump and you want the government to make them be nice.

 

[JasperL]

So you agree that Twitter is a publisher and not a free speech platform as they claim, and should be subject to libel and slander jeopardy for the content they publish?

When you post on DP, like you just did, the owners of DP aren't the publisher of your comment. You created that content and they're not responsible for what you created. You are responsible for the content YOU created, your posts, like that above.

If the owners of DP post comments, they are the publishers of what they created, and are liable for those comments. It's a very simple and a very good rule.

If you or NYP or anyone else think any content Twitter created is defamatory, they can sue Twitter. Banning a comment or a Twitter user isn't producing content - it's them making the rules for their playground, their private property, and you are not entitled to be treated even FAIRLY on that private platform. It's nice if they do treat everyone fairly, but they can be as unfair as they want - ban every MAGA, or every Biden fan and there's nothing anyone can do except cry and whine.

 

[Bullseye]

They're not nonsensical what-ifs. The question posed about the religious forum plays out every day, I'm sure hundreds of times per day. Who decides when/what/who/why the owners of that forum can ban trolls, delete their posts? The owners of that forum, OR, the government. That decision has nothing to do with free speech, unless and until the government FORCES that religious forum to advance a particular view point, and "balanced" is a viewpoint. At that point our actual "free speech" rights are dead because what we say through our forums, associations, and on our private property are subject to the approval of the GOVERNMENT.

What's telling is you have no answer because you've not thought through this other than Twitter is mean to Trump and you want the government to make them be nice.

Check Walmart - they're having a sale on clues and you definitely need one because your completely out. You're still obsessed with Trump.

 

[ClaraD]

When you post on DP, like you just did, the owners of DP aren't the publisher of your comment. You created that content and they're not responsible for what you created. You are responsible for the content YOU created, your posts, like that above.

If the owners of DP post comments, they are the publishers of what they created, and are liable for those comments. It's a very simple and a very good rule.

If you or NYP or anyone else think any content Twitter created is defamatory, they can sue Twitter. Banning a comment or a Twitter user isn't producing content - it's them making the rules for their playground, their private property, and you are not entitled to be treated even FAIRLY on that private platform. It's nice if they do treat everyone fairly, but they can be as unfair as they want - ban every MAGA, or every Biden fan and there's nothing anyone can do except cry and whine.

This is right on the bullseye....that is why each one of us can be legally liable for the things we post, but DP is not. The only way that DP could be found liable is if they endorse any of the false or libelous nonsense.

 

[pamak]

So you agree that Twitter is a publisher and not a free speech platform as they claim, and should be subject to libel and slander jeopardy for the content they publish?

When did you see Bretbart, Hannity and now Qanon being subjected to libel and slander? I agree that any platform, should be subjected to libel and slander laws when there is good evidence that they intentionally lie. And in the old days, there were FCC requirements for public media to maintain some balance

Fairness doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

 

[dixon01767]

You don't need to have a facebook or any other social media account. As a matter of fact you're statistically less likely to be a douchebag if you don't.

In California where all the tech companies are, a shopping mall owner cant prohibit people exercising their rights to free speech in the areas open to the public. Would seem if it applies to a private shopping mall, not exactly an area designed for conducting speech, it should apply to twitter, face book etc.

 

[JasperL]

Check Walmart - they're having a sale on clues and you definitely need one because your completely out. You're still obsessed with Trump.

If you think I'm wrong tell me why? Childish drive-by comments that ignore the issues aren't persuading anyone, except that you don't know what you're advocating.

Trump will be gone in a few months, or 4 years after that. Has nothing to do with him. Sec. 230 has been around for a long time predating Trump and will survive him if we aren't morons and kill it off.

 

[dixon01767]

When did you see Bretbart, Hannity and now Qanon being subjected to libel and slander?

Who did they slander?

 

[dixon01767]

If you think I'm wrong tell me why? Childish drive-by comments that ignore the issues aren't persuading anyone, except that you don't know what you're advocating.

Trump will be gone in a few months, or 4 years after that. Has nothing to do with him. Sec. 230 has been around for a long time predating Trump and will survive him if we aren't morons and kill it off.

I would think the possibility of losing 230 might bring the tech companies to their senses and agree to stop the blatant, partisan censorship.

 

[dixon01767]

Yes, but even then...that would mean he does not know who dropped off the laptop...whether it was Rudy himself or Hunter or someone else, for that matter. He is actually legally blind, so no way he knows who did or didn't bring the laptop to him.

He has Hunter Bidens signature on the form signed. A signature no one is denying.

 

[pamak]

In California where all the tech companies are, a shopping mall owner cant prohibit people exercising their rights to free speech in the areas open to the public. Would seem if it applies to a private shopping mall, not exactly an area designed for conducting speech, it should apply to twitter, face book etc.

An area open to the public (stores are open to the public) is not necesarily a public forum and it is not always clear what is public or private forum. Let me tell you what a shopping mall owner can do in my place in CA.

Appellate Court Affirms Right Of Privately Owned Shopping Center To Prohibit Solicitation In The Areas Adjacent To Store Entrances - Meyers | Nave

The recent appellate court decision on January 6, 2015, in Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, et. al. highlights that in California a free speech analysis does not end with an analysis under the First Amendment. Rather, the wider protections afforded under the...

www.meyersnave.com

Appellate Court Affirms Right Of Privately Owned Shopping Center To Prohibit Solicitation In The Areas Adjacent To Store Entrances

Many types of speech are prohibiited, and we create (and often change) the rules regarding what types of speech and places deserve most protection.

 

[pamak]

Who did they slander?

One example.

Pizzagate: Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal

The web of conspiracy theorists, Russian operatives, Trump campaigners who manufactured 'news' that Hillary Clinton ran a child-sex ring.

www.rollingstone.com

In October 2016, Hagmann claimed, he “communicated” with a friend who knows someone affiliated with the NYPD. The friend of the friend had been on the “task force” that secured Weiner’s computer and had copied documents onto a thumb drive “proving” Clinton and her associates were involved in pedophilia.

On Breitbart radio, Prince painted a picture sure to stir the far right. “Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating,” he said. “They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money-laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times.”

And by the way, such stories damaged not only politicians but also common people like the owner, employees anddd customers of the Pizzaplace

Pizzagate Nearly Destroyed My Restaurant. Then My Customers Helped Me Fight Back

Nothing could shut down this pizzeria. Not even a gunman attack.

www.inc.com

Pizzagate Nearly Destroyed My Restaurant

 

[ClaraD]

He has Hunter Bidens signature on the form signed. A signature no one is denying.

I haven't seen anyone verify that is actually Hunter Biden's signature, nor have I seen a signature. I saw his name...but that is meaningless...especially considering the fact that the shop is in Delaware and Hunter lives in Los Angeles.

 

[Bullseye]

If you think I'm wrong tell me why? Childish drive-by comments that ignore the issues aren't persuading anyone, except that you don't know what you're advocating.

I have told you - repeatedly.

Trump will be gone in a few months, or 4 years after that. Has nothing to do with him. Sec. 230 has been around for a long time predating Trump and will survive him if we aren't morons and kill it off.

And there you go with the Trump crap again.

 

[JasperL]

I would think the possibility of losing 230 might bring the tech companies to their senses and agree to stop the blatant, partisan censorship.

Well, I'd think losing customers is a bigger stick, and that's how it ought to work. When did you guys on the right lose faith in the "free market" to bring about change, and are now demanding big government force private companies to act like you want them to, the politically correct way?

Should we start regulating news outlets, too, and make sure they're not blatantly partisan?

 

[JasperL]

I have told you - repeatedly.
And there you go with the Trump crap again.

You haven't because you cannot. You don't understand your own proposals, and the impact of them. SAD!!

 

[dixon01767]

An area open to the public (stores are open to the public) is not necesarily a public forum and it is not always clear what is public or private forum. Let me tell you what a shopping mall owner can do in my place in CA.

Appellate Court Affirms Right Of Privately Owned Shopping Center To Prohibit Solicitation In The Areas Adjacent To Store Entrances - Meyers | Nave

The recent appellate court decision on January 6, 2015, in Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Inc. v. Nu Creation Outreach, et. al. highlights that in California a free speech analysis does not end with an analysis under the First Amendment. Rather, the wider protections afforded under the...

www.meyersnave.com

Appellate Court Affirms Right Of Privately Owned Shopping Center To Prohibit Solicitation In The Areas Adjacent To Store Entrances

Many types of speech are prohibiited, and we create (and often change) the rules regarding what types of speech and places deserve most protection.

So they would only need to step back 5 feet away from the stores entrance and would be able to exercise their free speech rights in the rest of the mall

the California Supreme Court refined its analysis and explained that it is the common areas of a privately owned shopping center, which have seating and other amenities that encourage shoppers to stop and linger or to congregate for purposes of relaxation and conversation, where speech rights are protected. See Ralphs, 55 Cal.4th 1083. By contrast, areas immediately adjacent to store entrances which serve a utilitarian purpose of facilitating customers’ ingress and egress, are generally not public forum areas. See id.

 

[dixon01767]

I haven't seen anyone verify that is actually Hunter Biden's signature, nor have I seen a signature. I saw his name...but that is meaningless...especially considering the fact that the shop is in Delaware and Hunter lives in Los Angeles.

There is the fact that neither Hunter or his dad have denied the accuracy of the signature. I guess they don't need to with all of you doing it for them.