- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 55,429
- Reaction score
- 52,262
- Location
- Twilight zone
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
President-elect Donald Trump isn’t messing around. His first major policy statement since his landslide victory outlines his plan to restore free speech. This fundamental right has been diluted by federal officials who have worked closely with tech executives to suppress views they do not like. If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. It’s a simple as that,” Mr. Trump explained in a video last week.
“The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed, and it must happen immediately,” Mr. Trump said.
You said it clearer and better than I would have. Apparently conservatives dont think that other people have free speech rights when people disagree with them.Oh, is he going to make it illegal for private and/or publicly traded social media companies to have moderation policies? Porn, Nazis, and Nazi Porn for all?
It's too painfully obvious why he switched to Republican to pursue politics seriously. They've got the most easily manipulated base, who will shout and scream about how much they love the 1st Amendment without having a ****ing clue what it actually protects and who it protects that from.
Yes, they certainly complained about non-governmental entities having moderation policies. Shame they didn't realize the 1st Amd. doesn't stop a social media company from yanking your post and suspending you.
If you disbelieve me, post porn right here and try to sue DP's owner for the resulting ban in the form of a §1983 suit (violation of certain civil rights) and see how fast you get laughed out of the lawyer's office.
He can - and will - remove their protections against civil lawsuits for slander and libel if they refuse to stay neutral and become publishers of information rather than providers.
Your free speech rights are not being limited by those actions. You should learn why.Actually the "stay neutral" ship sailed long ago. They've been the propaganda wing of the Dem party for years now.
Of course -- it's a DYI/how to play the victim book. What he does now, I'm not sure.its anything but inappropriate....the dude keeps Hitler's book on his night stand.
roflmaoTrump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.
This is violating the first amendment, and you support it.Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.
Not Hitler, just a malignant narcissist scumbag piece of shit liar grifter rapist seditionist felon and tax cheat.According to the left…
Ronald Reagan was Hitler.
George H. W. Bush was Hitler.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Trump is Hitler.
lol
Yeah, he's gonna stop Musk censoring 'X'.How does he plan to do the bolded bit?
Well, yes, obviously MAGA folks - including outright Nazis like Fuentes - will get away with whatever they like.Yeah, he's gonna stop Musk censoring 'X'.
Honest!
If he does that, this forum will be hit just as bad as the giants. If you can sue the social media platform (and this is a social media platform) for things their users do, then we will get MORE censorship, not less, because every platform will be in panic to remove things that can even theoretically hurt someone else to be sure not to get sued for it. Those protections exists to make social media platforms viable at all. If you are harassed online it's the person who harass you who is liable for it under the current model, the platform can become liable if they don't do anything about it, but they are not liable automatically. If those protections disappears, the platform is immediately liable for EVERYTHING their users does. Which also includes things like copyright violations.He can - and will - remove their protections against civil lawsuits for slander and libel if they refuse to stay neutral and become publishers of information rather than providers.
Actually the "stay neutral" ship sailed long ago. They've been the propaganda wing of the Dem party for years now.
This is violating the first amendment, and you support it.
You cannot force a private business to broadcast unwanted speech.
This is violating the first amendment, and you support it.
You cannot force a private business to broadcast unwanted speech.
Trump just announced that he will end the horrible censorship that the rotten leftist filth have been doing to conservatives. He will sign executive orders punishing government officials and social media groups who censor free speech.
Funny that Hitler would actually push for free and open speech and vow that it is our most important right lol. Maybe just maybe you guys labeled the wrong politician lol.
For years conservatives have complained about being censored and silenced. In 2020 government officials loyal to Biden colluded with social media to silence the discussion of the damaging but factual Hunter Biden laptop and burisma stories. A move that later polls showed cost Trump a victory. In 2022 more of the same. A few months ago Harris vowed to censor and silence free speech. She said it would be speech deemed as dangerous which means Republican speech. Trump is going to fix censorship no matter which direction it goes.
Hardy something that a dictator or Fascist would ever consider doing.
Best yet is that any government official who took part in that censorship will be fired!!!!! Finally someone willing to fight for ALL Americans free speech.
Throw them out like that FEMA bitch that instructed her staff to skip tornado destroyed homes if they displayed any Trump advertising.
Ending Section 230 protection results in more censorship, not less.He can - and will - remove their protections against civil lawsuits for slander and libel if they refuse to stay neutral and become publishers of information rather than providers.
Actually the "stay neutral" ship sailed long ago. They've been the propaganda wing of the Dem party for years now.
The result of removing Section 230 protections is more censorship, not less. You therefore support more censorship.What has been bandied about in the past is not to force social media to broadcast speech it does not wish.
What has been tossed around is reforming Sec 230 of the Communications Act to remove libel protections for such companies who engage in such activities.
If he does that, this forum will be hit just as bad as the giants. If you can sue the social media platform (and this is a social media platform) for things their users do, then we will get MORE censorship, not less, because every platform will be in panic to remove things that can even theoretically hurt someone else to be sure not to get sued for it. Those protections exists to make social media platforms viable at all. If you are harassed online it's the person who harass you who is liable for it under the current model, the platform can become liable if they don't do anything about it, but they are not liable automatically. If those protections disappears, the platform is immediately liable for EVERYTHING their users does. Which also includes things like copyright violations.
Would you be surprised if Trump administration cites the Korematsu decision as a defense for rounding up and deporting immigrants?Then again, this particular SCOTUS might rule that the executive branch has authority to follow or ignore the constitution as it pleases, citing Andrew Jackson. I don't put anything past them...
That first sentence was only so tongue-in-cheek. They got their 6-3 majority and started throwing out precedents left and right. There's a decent chance they pull another doozy out their asses, comparable to the "official acts immunity" and "how to legally bribe someone" decisions. And Dobbs. And throwing out Chevron deference. And and and. . . for the first time I can think of off the top of my head, they seem intentionally bent on delivering hard righties their dreams.
The result of removing Section 230 protections is more censorship, not less. You therefore support more censorship.
According to the left…
Ronald Reagan was Hitler.
George H. W. Bush was Hitler.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Trump is Hitler.
lol
Because taking that protection away means even more suppression. Absolutely draconian moderation is required to avoid liability.Correct-- but when the platform is suppressing certain things that it does not like, why should they have libel protection?
The protections are what allow platforms to do this, correct. Taking away those protections means platforms can't do this anymore.The reason why Sec 230 exists is to encourage exchanging of ideas and opinions.
It's not a deal. There was never a requirement of allowing every kind of speech on any platform. Section 230's purpose was never to coerce social media companies into ending all moderation and forcing them to broadcast all speech regardless of whether they want it. Private businesses are still private businesses.But if the platform is, on its own accord, suppressing ideas it does not like, then it isn't holding up is end of the deal.
The protections are what allow platforms to do this, correct. Taking away those protections means platforms can't do this anymore.
It's not a deal. There was never a requirement of allowing every kind of speech on any platform. Section 230's purpose was never to coerce social media companies into ending all moderation and forcing them to broadcast all speech regardless of whether they want it. Private businesses are still private businesses.
According to the left…
Ronald Reagan was Hitler.
George H. W. Bush was Hitler.
George W. Bush was Hitler.
Trump is Hitler.
lol
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?