Hunter is not a politician and he is not running for any office. I don't suppose you want special investigations into Jared and Ivanka's foreign deals and they held high positions in the Whitehouse unlike Hunter. Your hypocrisy is noted.
Hunter is not a politician, holds no office and has not been accused of any crime. I don't suppose you would want a special investigation of Jared and Ivanka's foreign deals and they held high positions in the Whitehouse. Your hypocrisy is noted.
Who's the 'big guy'?
Your willful ignorance of the obvious, when in favor of Democrats noted.Another partner sent that May 13, 2017, e-mail (subject line: “Expectations”) to detail “remuneration packages” for six people involved in a venture with Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.: 10 percent would be “held by H for the big guy” — and Bobulinski confirms the “big guy” was Joe Biden. “The other ‘JB’ referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother,” says Bobulinski, who was the CEO of the company being formed.
With confirmation on Hunter’s influence-peddling, Joe Biden has explaining to do
Now that a former Hunter Biden business partner has confirmed key facts in The Post’s reporting of Biden’s efforts to monetize his family connections, Joe Biden has some explaining to do. But will …nypost.com
Federal criminal investigation into Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings in China
Federal criminal investigation into Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings in China
After going quiet in the months before the election, federal authorities are now actively investigating the business dealings of Hunter Biden, a person with knowledge of the probe said. His father, President-elect Joe Biden, is not implicated.www.cnn.com
The "big guy" in all the NY Posts reporting on Hunter is most definitely Vladimir Putin since that is where those emails came from.
So why aren't you now is a panic about that?
Another partner sent that May 13, 2017, e-mail (subject line: “Expectations”) to detail “remuneration packages” for six people involved in a venture with Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.: 10 percent would be “held by H for the big guy” — and Bobulinski confirms the “big guy” was Joe Biden. “The other ‘JB’ referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother,” says Bobulinski, who was the CEO of the company being formed.With confirmation on Hunter’s influence-peddling, Joe Biden has explaining to do
Now that a former Hunter Biden business partner has confirmed key facts in The Post’s reporting of Biden’s efforts to monetize his family connections, Joe Biden has some explaining to do. But will …
“Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line,” Bobulinski continues.
Bobulinski, who served in the Navy before pursuing an investment career and notes he’s made “few campaign contributions,” all to Democrats, concludes: “I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.”
So from the leftist 'woke' New York Slimes' political commentary, and I'm supposed to take that as credible? Yeah, but no.
Not with impunity. Govt protection needs to end so they can be legally pummeled like every other company in America.
Then the issue needs to be addressed in a separate Bill from the Defense Bill. Having it attached as a demand from trump is nothing more than extortion and at the moment could be overridden by Congress, if the Dems support it. That said maybe the Dems should say we either pass a relief Bill or the Defense Bill will die, see how that works?
Oh pulleeezzee! You act like you've been violated like a prom queen. Stuff is added to bill every single time that has zero to do with the bill.
Actually the Defense Bill usually is pretty much a stand alone thing, oh and by the way, it is the President that is demanding it, not Congress that wrote the Bill. So, the point is it is not in the Bill and will not be included, period. If Congress wants to take up the topic they have every right to do so and probably will, but you know darn well it is a simply a revenge thing with trump and has nothing to do with the concerns others may have. Save your personal attacks for those that find them amusing or don't bother with a reply.
That misstates the law. When Fox et al. publish comments they are liable. Fox, CNN and the rest are legally liable for the comments of their hosts and others on air or that appear on their news websites, so long as those articles are affirmatively approved, published, by the news orgs.
What part of the constitution requires private businesses to be "neutral platforms of ideas?" In fact the constitution protects our right to be non-neutral, especially with regard to government. We have a protected right, as do organizations, to bitterly oppose members of the government. That's core to being a free society. And you have no right to demand a platform to speak your mind. You cannot demand a church allow you to take over the pulpit to declare god is not real. Etc..
Twitter didn't block Trump's ability to block users - the federal courts did.
The other point is nothing in the law or the constitution requires or really CAN require that a private business be a "neutral platform for ideas and free expression." They have a constitutionally protected right to be unbiased if they want, to oppose Trump or Biden, to oppose white supremacy or BLM, to oppose abortion or oppose those who'd outlaw it, etc.
In a free society, individuals and private businesses in fact have a constitutionally protected right to be unbiased. It cannot be any other way. If we must be "neutral" then you'd demand the law require 'neutrality' in the face of government abuse, tyranny, oppression, because to oppose that is to be biased against the tyrannical government, and the law must punish that - that's your working theory. Of course it cannot be the case that a private entity must be 'unbiased' to tyranny or oppression, or even tax policies it does not like. Furthermore, to condition legal rights on giving up another protected right seems like an absurd trade. Either in this case you are neutral to tyranny or government laws will subject you to punishing legal liability! Doesn't make sense....
The owners of the website.Lies according to whom? The politically biased and politically driven social media so called 'fact checkers'?
Or you could just not use those platforms....
The argument that I pose is not to demand that web sites have to be "neutral", nor any government oversight. My argument is a simple one, which is that web sites exert such editorial control, clearly not done in good faith, they have changed from 'platforms' into 'publishers', and it is on this basis that Section 230 no longer applies by them.
Twitter has been a sewer and a cesspool by the end of their first week in operation. None the less Twitter and Facebook have become the new defacto public square.
You should stick with an argument. You said, "by exercising politically biased and politically driven censorship" they are violating the law. Nothing in the law requires a site to be "unbiased" and we obviously have a 1A right to be politically biased, as do organizations. If the 1A doesn't protect that, it's failed in its role in a free society as nothing can be more sacred than our right to be "biased" against the GOVERNMENT.
Neither the law nor the 1A requires them to make the choice you demand....
You missed the point entirely, and I have to assume deliberately. The key part of that sentence is, "The problem is every website, including this one, exert editorial control."
'defacto public square' isn't a legally definable term. They ARE private businesses. They are NOT public, so not a public square. And private businesses in fact can decide what posters they like and leave up on their property.
'Round and 'Round it goes. While spent quite a bit of time typing all that in, seems you are still not addressing my main point, which is that 'What part of biased politically driven censorship is in 'good faith''?
Are political posts from users that the 'platform' doesn't agree with 'offensive'? Or just is just disagreeable sufficient to be terms as 'offensive'?
.I know it when I see it - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio.[1][2] In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:
I get it - right wingers believe they're entitled to forums who moderate their platforms like they want them moderated. But the 1A and the law say differently.
I'll quit with this. You insist that private businesses must be neutral to government they oppose. They in fact have NO obligation to be unbiased or neutral, not FB, not Twitter, not Fox News, not DP, not a Jewish Holocaust site. In a free society they have a 1A protected right to engage in "biased politically driven censorship" because all that means in real life is they are free to oppose government, government leaders, and associate if they want with others who oppose that government, liberal or conservative. Jewish websites do not in fact have to be neutral to neo-Nazis, no matter how polite, on their websites, and neither does anyone else, although those opinions are CLEARLY protected by the 1A. This place and every other can ban hammer them with impunity, and that's a good thing. It also means they can, if they want, engage in biased politically driven censorship against anyone else, such as Bernie Bros, or MAGAs or the "crew" fans.
No, you are still spinning a strawman there.
So then, your concerted opinion would result in the electorate be manipulated by only being able to access politically one sided leftist reporting from every side, reinforced by leftist big tech which wuold only 'find' leftist opinions and ideas for every search, while also suppressing any political views that aren't leftist by banning them, hiding them, denying access to them, while at the same time any conservative speech or ideas are declared as offensive and banned, if not by the government, but by the rest of society.