- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,606
- Reaction score
- 19,348
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
These people talking about free speech... who don't think or talk about "Responsible Speech".....
IF they do correct their kids, why can't they correct themselves.
- I wonder how to they correct their kids who use abusive, misleading, or lying speech?
Most of such types who push this delusions they can say anything they want,
- only want to promote the anti democracy right wing spins,
- speech tries to deny something to society or groups or someone;
- speech that want to try and stagnate or regress something,
- and they want to think they are covert in spinning their promotional white nationalist spins.
Thank goodness, Universities take a stand in not allowing such on their campuses. and hopefully social media takes a firmer stand against allowing such, because it is not 'Responsible Speech that Supports, Benefits, or Advances America's Democracy.
You keep calling out the 'what' (pandemic related) as if this gave it a pass as to the constitutionality (A1), which it doesn't.They are making it known the misinformation is aiding the pandemic. Get it?
You keep calling out the 'what' (pandemic related) as if this gave it a pass as to the constitutionality (A1), which it doesn't.
'Get it?' Yeah, I 'Get it'.
Democrats want to flog on pandemic panic as it gives them more political power and control (arbitrary, non-science based, small business shutdowns), which is all they want (one party rule - their one party - Sorry, but it doesn't work like that, nor should it ever work like that)
You fight your battles and we'll see where this goes. There is no reason anyone should be allowed a world wide platform to spread lies about a vaccine designed to eradicate a deadly virus.That would just be the start. Anytime the Biden Administration deems posts to be detrimental to its policies would continue to collude with social media to violate free speech by the government.
Whether the Delta Variant is real or not is not at question.The Delta Variant is real and again the rightwing morons have to make it about everything else that is bs.
Whether the Delta Variant is real or not is not at question.
You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?
Isn't it 'fun' when political bias censors lab leak theories which in the end appear to be true?Is it fun ignoring the medical misinformation that exists because of political bias.
Isn't it 'fun' when political bias censors lab leak theories which in the end appear to be true?
Diversion. You've not answered the questions posed. As I am kind and tolerant, I'll repeat myself so perhaps you can respond to the questions posed:
You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?
Last chance to respond to these central and fundamental questions.
Dodge. Changing the subject.Where does this fall in you misleading 1st amendment argument? The pandemic is real, right?
Here I will make it easy for you since you seem to be struggling with this. Facebook is not a state actor. There now see. Now you can go on about the rest of your day without enduring angst about NOTHING.Now your being daft and being totally disengenious on the White House being the government.
Its not cherry picking when it breaks down three reasons why a private entity can be considered a "State Actor". Section iii being one of them. And notice, you don't have to violate all three. Just one section is enough to be considered as a state actor.
huh, actually, that right there is unconstitutional.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
secetion 230 allows the abridgement of speech, thus it is unconstitutional as enacted by congress.
laffriotIf Joe suggested I do his bidding I would just go ahead and do it before he challenged me to a push up contest , or worse .
He is one tough dude !
View attachment 67343197
Dodge. Changing the subject.
You don't believe that each person should be allowed to make their own medical decisions?
Make their own risk evaluation, whether their they are at greater risk from the virus or from the vaccine for the virus?
What happened to 'My Body, My Choice'?
The 1A argument and whether the pandemic is real or not are separate questions from the above I've posed, which you appear to be unwilling or unable to answer.
Ball in your court. Answer the legitimate on topic questions posed.
Here is an argument where Facebook could be considered a 'state actor'.Here I will make it easy for you since you seem to be struggling with this. Facebook is not a state actor. There now see. Now you can go on about the rest of your day without enduring angst about NOTHING.
A) there is no proof that the emboldened line of text in your post is accurate. Trump wants to explore that argument further....Be my guest Donnie. You are going to have to do it on your nickel now, not the government nickel and when you are done you are going to be hit with court and legal fees from your opponents. Good luck with that too and you are going to face Discovery along the way. Good luck with that too.Here is an argument where Facebook could be considered a 'state actor'.
Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ
Save the Constitution From Big Tech Congressional threats and inducements make Twitter and Facebook censorship a free-speech violation. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Google CEO Sundar Pichai and...Conventional wisdom holds that technology companies are free to regulate content because they are private, and the First Amendment protects only against government censorship. That view is wrong: Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.Section 230 is the carrot, and there’s also a stick: Congressional Democrats have repeatedly made explicit threats to social-media giants if they failed to censor speech those lawmakers disfavored. In April 2019, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond warned Facebook and Google that they had “better” restrict what he and his colleagues saw as harmful content or face regulation: “We’re going to make it swift, we’re going to make it strong, and we’re going to hold them very accountable.” New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler added: “Let’s see what happens by just pressuring them.”So at the government’s inducement and threats, these companies are censoring content those government representatives don’t like. That makes these companies state actors.If Congress and the White House pose 'carrot and stick' approach to social media companies to censor user's content they don't like, the argument cited quite rightly classifies those social media companies as 'state actors', as per SCOTUS rulings which have been cited in these forums.
Your denial that those social media companies can't be considered 'state actors' appears to be driven by partisanship and denial.
Maybe you should visit some other countries and try 'saying anything you think you want to say".... and see how that works for you.
This is not the pre-1960's of white nationalist segregation, when "white people" could say anything they wanted about to or about other ethnic groups and suffer no consequences. That's the craziness that white nationalist agenda of the past allowed too many to think they can continue in this day and time doing what their ancestry did.
- You likely will come back and learn to respect the parameters of "America's Free Speech" in the context of "Responsible Speech".
After Charlottesville and Jan. 6th savages terrorist treasonous attack on the U.S. Capitol and American Democracy.... "There is no more of the "assuming that just because a group has white skin, that they are not a domestic threat"... That delusions is over!!!
It may have worked during Jim Crow, when whites supported whites attacking blacks and other minorities and then pretending that the white people were not criminal in such savagery, well.... Civil Rights Legislation put laws in place to address such motivation and agenda and there is no more "all white juries" and "all white judges" to give them a pass for being white people.
We will get some legislation in place (and hopefully it happens sooner than later), to stop these race hate groups and anti government types from parading with their military styled gear and military styled and likeness weapons from being a part of any public assembly. Then make it a automatic Felony punishable by a 20 yrs Federal Sentence, to go on any Federal, State, or Local Government Building or grounds carrying weapons, i.e. guns, long guns, assault style weapons, and bullet proof vest and other type things that can be added to the list, such as what these terroristic insurrectionist did in Michigan and other places.
Not one of these groups will go to a court house or governmental civic building in Beverly Hills, Palm Spring, North Hills, East Hills, Scarsdale, Highland Park or any other wealthy city in any state and try this stuff. The laws against it will get passed quicker than one can drink a glass of water.
Why can't you answer his specific question? Should individuals have the right to make their own risk assessments and medical decisions? Yes or no?Your strange argument is null and void because of the pandemic, when persons refuse to acknowledge covid is passed from person to person. You cant argue my body bs when persons refuse to acknowledge medical facts.
[1] Yes you did, and I showed you how those definitions did NOT apply.
[2] Once again, show me the LAW that Congress passed (which is a necessity to prove a violation of that particular "constitutional right").
That would be for Facebook to decide. The government flagging and attempting to remove post is a freedom of speech issue. Now if it's a supposed "Responsible Speech" they need to go through the courts for that.
You cannot infringe on freedom of speech to claim responsible speech. That is something for the courts to decide.
Your "it is written that the federal government will not abridge free speech" is about as close to being totally wrong as it can be without slipping over the line into delusion.
There are a plethora of federal government laws (and regulations) that restrict what a person may say and under what conditions they may say it and the courts have upheld those laws time after time after time.
Why can't you answer his specific question? Should individuals have the right to make their own risk assessments and medical decisions? Yes or no?
[/
Based on legit information absolutely, but there are too many dumb people in this country.
The government in this instance is not infringing free speech.Again, the government can't justify infringing free speech just to claim unjustified free speech. They need to go to the courts.
Is your worry that someone makes a medical decision for themselves and by themselves which you don't agree with?Your strange argument is null and void because of the pandemic, when persons refuse to acknowledge covid is passed from person to person. You cant argue my body bs when persons refuse to acknowledge medical facts.
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?