(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

So what’s wrong with a private business or person meddling in our elections? Didn’t you liberal types just have a three year hissy fit over just that? Who cares if it’s Russians or liberals lying on FB and Twitter? You people are incredible hypocrites that have no shame. Trump lying-oh my god scream at the sky. Liberals lying- don’t question them. SAD.

LMFAO it's ridiculous that you people think that calling out your talking heads for their hate speech, misinformation, and violent rhetoric is meddling with free speech and free elections. Really an astounding leap.

(05-29-2020 09:10 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

Lmao only the conservatives could equate "being called out and labeled as wrong" to being censored.

There's nothing in the constitution that says your 1st amendment rights are void if you receive money from the government.

Methinks you don't know what the EO actually does.

No social media platform is being silenced. No social media platform is having its 1st amendment rights voided. This EO is essentially telling them that they cannot engage in censorship and continue to receive funding/protection from the government.

How can you possibly twist that to be a bad thing?

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

“Liberals” used to be. Problem is, they mostly don’t exist anymore.

More like something you’d see in a museum now, perhaps the one with the big elephant in DC.

We now have latest incarnation of “Progressives” (read: Regressives) those who want to conduct our lives for us, tell us where to go, when, why, and how we’ll do so. All in the interests of the “public good” of course.

Offer any doubt think and you’ll be in a world of hurt soon enough. The individual no longer exists, except in how you can benefit the whole. After that? You’re dispensable.

Just ask Mario’s kid.

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

The 1st Amendment means that the government can't infringe on your right of free speech. Now, Twitter and them do have the right in saying what can and can not be said on their sites. They are not the government, and what Trump is doing is violating their first Amendment rights on these issues.

(05-29-2020 09:18 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:10 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

Lmao only the conservatives could equate "being called out and labeled as wrong" to being censored.

There's nothing in the constitution that says your 1st amendment rights are void if you receive money from the government.

Methinks you don't know what the EO actually does.

No social media platform is being silenced. No social media platform is having its 1st amendment rights voided. This EO is essentially telling them that they cannot engage in censorship and continue to receive funding/protection from the government.

How can you possibly twist that to be a bad thing?

As I have stated multiple times. The government cannot tell a private citizen or private corporation what they can and cannot say or allow. It doesn't matter what the EO says to the opposite.

All this despite the fact that no matter how you skew the definition of censorship, they did not censor him in any way. They'd still be well within their right to do it, regardless.

(05-29-2020 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

The 1st Amendment means that the government can't infringe on your right of free speech. Now, Twitter and them do have the right in saying what can and can not be said on their sites. They are not the government, and what Trump is doing is violating their first Amendment rights on these issues.

I am glad you came around to supporting the Citizens United ruling. Baby steps.

https://www.history.com/topics/united-st...ens-united

"In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment."

(05-29-2020 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

The 1st Amendment means that the government can't infringe on your right of free speech. Now, Twitter and them do have the right in saying what can and can not be said on their sites. They are not the government, and what Trump is doing is violating their first Amendment rights on these issues.

How is Trump violating their constitutional rights? They have a constitutional right to free money and protection from the government? That must be the First and a Half amendment.

Jesus you people make it more and more apparent that you all have absolutely no idea what is actually in the constitution.

(05-29-2020 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Jesus you people make it more and more apparent that you all have absolutely no idea what is actually in the constitution.

/\ still doesnt get it. Not surprised. #sad

(05-29-2020 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The 1st Amendment means that the government can't infringe on your right of free speech. Now, Twitter and them do have the right in saying what can and can not be said on their sites. They are not the government, and what Trump is doing is violating their first Amendment rights on these issues.

But here's the part you are overlooking. ISPs have immunity from liability for anything that travels over their platforms, because they are viewed as mere conduits, not originators. It's like if you stop someone running drugs, you can't prosecute the highway authority because he used their roads.

They are trying to avail themselves of this exemption. But if they start controlling content through censorship, then this exemption could go away.

There is one exception, the Napster case. Where the ISP is being used for illegal activity, like copyright infringement in Napster's case, the ISP is responsible for policing that. But nothing gives them the right or the duty to police non-criminal thoughts with which they don't agree.

(05-29-2020 09:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  As I have stated multiple times. The government cannot tell a private citizen or private corporation what they can and cannot say or allow. It doesn't matter what the EO says to the opposite.
All this despite the fact that no matter how you skew the definition of censorship, they did not censor him in any way. They'd still be well within their right to do it, regardless.

They are within their right to do it. But where the kicker comes is that in so doing, they may invalidate the ISP exemption from liability for whatever goes out over their platform.

You don't have to regulate them directly, just put it out that you will view it as a termination of their ISP exemption.

(05-29-2020 10:01 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Jesus you people make it more and more apparent that you all have absolutely no idea what is actually in the constitution.

/\ still doesnt get it. Not surprised. #sad

^ case in point. Not at all unexpected though

(05-29-2020 10:20 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 10:01 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Jesus you people make it more and more apparent that you all have absolutely no idea what is actually in the constitution.

/\ still doesnt get it. Not surprised. #sad

^ case in point. Not at all unexpected though

The 1st Amendment does NOT guarantee you the right to federal funding and protection from lawsuits!

Trump is not threatening to shut anyone down. He is threatening to remove protections and funding. That is all.

My God. You are either just a couple crayons short of a full box, or you're being deliberately dense. I don't know which is worse.

(05-29-2020 10:21 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 10:20 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 10:01 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:43 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Jesus you people make it more and more apparent that you all have absolutely no idea what is actually in the constitution.

/\ still doesnt get it. Not surprised. #sad

^ case in point. Not at all unexpected though

The 1st Amendment does NOT guarantee you the right to federal funding and protection from lawsuits!

Trump is not threatening to shut anyone down. He is threatening to remove protections and funding. That is all.

My God. You are either just a couple crayons short of a full box, or you're being deliberately dense. I don't know which is worse.

You're right, the funding or protections (whatever they may be) aren't guaranteed under their first amendment rights, sure. Removing them explicitly as punishment for using their first amendment rights, however, is unconstitutional, as proven in court many times in our history.

(05-29-2020 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

The 1st Amendment means that the government can't infringe on your right of free speech. Now, Twitter and them do have the right in saying what can and can not be said on their sites. They are not the government, and what Trump is doing is violating their first Amendment rights on these issues.

Then they should state their positions. Instead they claim to be open and free and yet monitor-remove only conservatives. Just be honest. They don’t like conservatives or the president so they do what they can to quite their voice. Maybe not censorship but it’s damn sure taking a position. And the problem with that? It’s a political gift worth untold millions to one particular party. That’s fine. Let’s just figure out it’s worth and proceed “by the book” from there.

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

What right does the government have to say Walmart can't exclusively hire illegal immigrants for $1/hour?

You leftists are so shook on this issue that all you can do is screech "private company' over and over. I don't know who taught or convinced you that simply "being a private company" means you have free reign to do whatever the hell you want, but it's honestly the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

There are already laws on the books that say they can't do what they are doing, and President Trump, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, is demanding that those laws be enforced.

If twitter is going to pick sides politically, meddle in the election by incorrectly fact-checking one side while completely ignoring the other, they are obviously acting as a publisher, no different than the NYT. They no longer have a right to immunity from lawsuits and become liable for all the content they allow to be published.

(05-29-2020 09:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:18 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:10 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 09:01 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

When you're receiving federal funding and/or liability protection, the government has a right to say what they can/cannot do. Or else lose said funding/protection.

Trump was censored because his post was flagged as misleading (by a well-known anti-Trumper).. which was a move to censor/discredit Trump.

But it's not just about Trump. It is about the astounding number of conservatives that have been systematically silenced, banned, shut down by social media platforms.

Let's not forget... this is simply about allowing free speech. Liberals should be all for that.

Lmao only the conservatives could equate "being called out and labeled as wrong" to being censored.

There's nothing in the constitution that says your 1st amendment rights are void if you receive money from the government.

Methinks you don't know what the EO actually does.

No social media platform is being silenced. No social media platform is having its 1st amendment rights voided. This EO is essentially telling them that they cannot engage in censorship and continue to receive funding/protection from the government.

How can you possibly twist that to be a bad thing?

As I have stated multiple times. The government cannot tell a private citizen or private corporation what they can and cannot say or allow. It doesn't matter what the EO says to the opposite.

All this despite the fact that no matter how you skew the definition of censorship, they did not censor him in any way. They'd still be well within their right to do it, regardless.

You still don't understand. By law, these platforms have freedom from liability from what is posted on their site---as long as they are simply a publisher and not an editor. But they are editing and commenting on certain speech. That means they should be liable for every bad thing that gets posted on their site, just like CNN or NY Post do.

(05-29-2020 08:55 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:31 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 08:30 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  It's hilarious watching the cons melt down over this. The mental gymnastics constitutional conservatives are using to justify proposed 1st amendment violations by their idiot in chief would solve the South's obesity epidemic

How is it a 1st amendment violation?

The EO is targeting CENSORSHIP. If you are a fan of freedom of speech and freedom of thought... this is ONLY a GOOD thing.

How was Trump censored?

Even if he was "censored", what right does the government have to say a private business or private citizen cannot do it?

Like I said, the mental gymnastics would win gold at the snowflake Olympics

There's a few bakers that refused to make cakes that would like to speak to you then...

It's like this, Twitter wants to fact check Trump, they need to fact check every person that tweets, if not, that could be construed as a form of censorship... Sorry I know I used a big word.

If the fact check is not available for every tweeter, it's null and void..

But if they want to fact check Trump on his conspiracy theories, they should be ready to turn over information on any tweeter that has made a threat to law enforcement, member of the armed forces, and the POTUS (no matter who) to the government for prosecution. Free speech means I can walk into my boss' office and call him a d*ckhead, but it doesn't protect me from being fired just means I can't be jailed for it.

This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with the legal carve out that these platforms were given in law in exchange for being neutral.

Now that they have established themselves, they think they can slowly have it both ways and tip the scale in favor of their ideology. They need to be reminded that they can't.