How?

(06-23-2020 10:37 PM)JMU Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:13 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 10:09 PM)JMU Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 09:54 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Sorry not sorry. I didn’t invent the concept of racists in Alabama.

Predictable response. Moving on.

If you want to call someone out, you don’t say something vague, then not explain what the issue is & ask to move on (as you post in an OT thread). I DIDN’T PICK A FIGHT WITH YOU.

Your choice of “joke” language was offensive to me.

Being able to have a sense of humor despite the circumstances ("gallows humor") is a sign of being well adjusted.

^ disagree. I think it shows poor taste and insensitivity. But like I said, I’m moving on. So, no more posts on it from me.

GTS, you have to stop posting commonsense videos like Jordan Peterson's. You have no idea how many you have offended.... or maybe you do.

Peterson's position on free speech is spot on. Free speech is an absolute, it isn't conditioned upon one thing or another, imposed by the authorities at the whim of some palm-greasing benefactor(s). And, the First Amendment, notwithstanding the cries of the literalists, does more than guarantee that the government will make no laws to abridge free speech. By looking the other way when free speech is being openly violated, the government is thereby complicit, in my opinion (which isn't worth much until presented before a court of law), and in direct violation of the First Amendment.

That is why I believe hburg was doing a fine job moderating this board. He avoided censorship at all costs, despite the shrieking demands of certain parties to remove him because he wasn't censoring SOMEONE ELSE. It is always someone else they want censored. Funny how that works.

(06-24-2020 09:10 AM)Purple Wrote:  GTS, you have to stop posting commonsense videos like Jordan Peterson's. You have no idea how many you have offended.... or maybe you do.

Peterson's position on free speech is spot on. Free speech is an absolute, it isn't conditioned upon one thing or another, imposed by the authorities at the whim of some palm-greasing benefactor(s). And, the First Amendment, notwithstanding the cries of the literalists, does more than guarantee that the government will make no laws to abridge free speech. By looking the other way when free speech is being openly violated, the government is thereby complicit, in my opinion (which isn't worth much until presented before a court of law), and in direct violation of the First Amendment.

That is why I believe hburg was doing a fine job moderating this board. He avoided censorship at all costs, despite the shrieking demands of certain parties to remove him because he wasn't censoring SOMEONE ELSE. It is always someone else they want censored. Funny how that works.

Oh man, I'm really interested in hearing GTS' take on free speech and if the 1st amendment applies to nongovernmental entities such as this message board. I have no doubt that GTS wants to create an atmosphere where free exchange of ideas is encouraged but do you as a social media site owner feel any LEGAL responsibility to ensure that no one's speech regardless how uninformed or moronic or caustic it may be has the right to be heard here? And I'd like to follow up with asking him whether he thinks he should be liable for what Purple here may post on the site. For those of you that don't know this is not an abstract question for GTS.

https://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-s...1684191151

But first I'd like to hear bjk3047's take on this topic? bjk? Oh that's right, he was just silenced for 2 weeks for questioning GTS' authoritah



Personally I feel if you have an unpopular opinion and get shouted down I don't want the US Federal government to step in and protect every little snowflake. That's not what the first amendment is for or about. So for the last time. The government is the only entity that can restrict your first amendment rights.

(06-24-2020 11:04 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Oh man, I'm really interested in hearing GTS' take on free speech and if the 1st amendment applies to nongovernmental entities such as this message board. I have no doubt that GTS wants to create an atmosphere where free exchange of ideas is encouraged but do you as a social media site owner feel any LEGAL responsibility to ensure that no one's speech regardless how uninformed or moronic or caustic it may be has the right to be heard here? And I'd like to follow up with asking him whether he thinks he should be liable for what Purple here may post on the site. For those of you that don't know this is not an abstract question for GTS.

https://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-s...1684191151

The first amendment is applicable to government and the public square as a matter of law. It is not applicable to private companies or private citizens in their private homes. It is up to those private entities to establish their own standards for what is and is not acceptable. However those private entities carry the burden of the consequences of those decisions. If I operate a bar and I want to ban anybody who ever mentions sports in that bar from ever coming back I can totally do that. It would of course also be moronic and send me hurtling out of business quickly. So I would say while private entities aren't subject to the first amendment as a matter of legal recourse they are subject to societal and cultural norms which are enforced in their own ways by the people who choose or don't choose to engage with those private entities.

Quote:But first I'd like to hear bjk3047's take on this topic? bjk? Oh that's right, he was just silenced for 2 weeks for questioning GTS' authoritah

He was bounced 2 weeks for first being the largest **** stirrer in the flame threads here and then defying the new mods and then asking me to stick up for him in his act of defiance with the new mods. If he just dialed his melodramatic-o-meter to 5 instead of a Spinal-Tap-ish 11 he'd probably still be here.

(06-24-2020 11:04 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Personally I feel if you have an unpopular opinion and get shouted down I don't want the US Federal government to step in and protect every little snowflake. That's not what the first amendment is for or about. So for the last time. The government is the only entity that can restrict your first amendment rights.

This is, strictly speaking in the legal courtroom context, accurate.

(06-24-2020 11:52 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 11:04 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Oh man, I'm really interested in hearing GTS' take on free speech and if the 1st amendment applies to nongovernmental entities such as this message board. I have no doubt that GTS wants to create an atmosphere where free exchange of ideas is encouraged but do you as a social media site owner feel any LEGAL responsibility to ensure that no one's speech regardless how uninformed or moronic or caustic it may be has the right to be heard here? And I'd like to follow up with asking him whether he thinks he should be liable for what Purple here may post on the site. For those of you that don't know this is not an abstract question for GTS.

https://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-s...1684191151

The first amendment is applicable to government and the public square as a matter of law. It is not applicable to private companies or private citizens in their private homes. It is up to those private entities to establish their own standards for what is and is not acceptable. However those private entities carry the burden of the consequences of those decisions. If I operate a bar and I want to ban anybody who ever mentions sports in that bar from ever coming back I can totally do that. It would of course also be moronic and send me hurtling out of business quickly. So I would say while private entities aren't subject to the first amendment as a matter of legal recourse they are subject to societal and cultural norms which are enforced in their own ways by the people who choose or don't choose to engage with those private entities.

Quote:But first I'd like to hear bjk3047's take on this topic? bjk? Oh that's right, he was just silenced for 2 weeks for questioning GTS' authoritah

He was bounced 2 weeks for first being the largest **** stirrer in the flame threads here and then defying the new mods and then asking me to stick up for him in his act of defiance with the new mods. If he just dialed his melodramatic-o-meter to 5 instead of a Spinal-Tap-ish 11 he'd probably still be here.

(06-24-2020 11:04 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Personally I feel if you have an unpopular opinion and get shouted down I don't want the US Federal government to step in and protect every little snowflake. That's not what the first amendment is for or about. So for the last time. The government is the only entity that can restrict your first amendment rights.

This is, strictly speaking in the legal courtroom context, accurate.

Thanks swagger. We'll have to wait for bjk's opinion. Purple, do you have anything to add? You can plead the 5th of course but that would be as silly in this context as saying bjk's 1st amendment rights were trampled because you're not on trial and moderators aren't the government.

We could have a philosophical debate about the value of different points of view in a free society but the 1st amendment is to protect you from the government not your neighbors.

"The government is the only entity that can restrict your first amendment rights."

@Mturn - a slight but important retake on this .... the gov't can TRY to restrict our constitutional rights, but they are limited in those powers. Amendments are for protecting us from them, never the other way around!

I think what he meant is that only the government can restrict your speech in a way that you’d be correct in calling it a violation of your first amendment rights. Get arrested for a racist tweet, time to scream about free speech and the first amendment. Get banned by twitter, fired by your boss, or disowned by your family for it... Not so much.

Ah...i get it now, thanks for clarifying (assuming you are correct)

(06-24-2020 12:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 11:52 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 11:04 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Oh man, I'm really interested in hearing GTS' take on free speech and if the 1st amendment applies to nongovernmental entities such as this message board. I have no doubt that GTS wants to create an atmosphere where free exchange of ideas is encouraged but do you as a social media site owner feel any LEGAL responsibility to ensure that no one's speech regardless how uninformed or moronic or caustic it may be has the right to be heard here? And I'd like to follow up with asking him whether he thinks he should be liable for what Purple here may post on the site. For those of you that don't know this is not an abstract question for GTS.

https://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-s...1684191151

The first amendment is applicable to government and the public square as a matter of law. It is not applicable to private companies or private citizens in their private homes. It is up to those private entities to establish their own standards for what is and is not acceptable. However those private entities carry the burden of the consequences of those decisions. If I operate a bar and I want to ban anybody who ever mentions sports in that bar from ever coming back I can totally do that. It would of course also be moronic and send me hurtling out of business quickly. So I would say while private entities aren't subject to the first amendment as a matter of legal recourse they are subject to societal and cultural norms which are enforced in their own ways by the people who choose or don't choose to engage with those private entities.

Quote:But first I'd like to hear bjk3047's take on this topic? bjk? Oh that's right, he was just silenced for 2 weeks for questioning GTS' authoritah

He was bounced 2 weeks for first being the largest **** stirrer in the flame threads here and then defying the new mods and then asking me to stick up for him in his act of defiance with the new mods. If he just dialed his melodramatic-o-meter to 5 instead of a Spinal-Tap-ish 11 he'd probably still be here.

(06-24-2020 11:04 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Personally I feel if you have an unpopular opinion and get shouted down I don't want the US Federal government to step in and protect every little snowflake. That's not what the first amendment is for or about. So for the last time. The government is the only entity that can restrict your first amendment rights.

This is, strictly speaking in the legal courtroom context, accurate.

Thanks swagger. We'll have to wait for bjk's opinion. Purple, do you have anything to add? You can plead the 5th of course but that would be as silly in this context as saying bjk's 1st amendment rights were trampled because you're not on trial and moderators aren't the government.

We could have a philosophical debate about the value of different points of view in a free society but the 1st amendment is to protect you from the government not your neighbors.

I agree that the Fist Amendment is to protect us from the government. My point is that while that is the literal language, there is much implied in the Amendment. It is easy to see only that "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech." That's easy! But there is much more implied there. The government cannot turn its head while free speech is being denied to any class of people without itself being complicit. In so doing, the government is allowing (supporting) the prohibition of free speech.

The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

(06-24-2020 05:58 PM)Purple Wrote:  The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

In the case of the baker that is the federal government overruling a state government when it comes to enforcing compliance with the Constitution. It's no different than the Feds having correct the Michigan government on Vincent Chen's murder, or the Feds having to correct the Chicago government on 2nd amendment laws. That goes both ways. The states told the federal government to take a hike on prohibition. The states have already effectively though not formally and totally told the federal government to take a hike on cannabis.

Those who bring challenges against those social media / tech companies will likely lose. They are platforms which are avenues of expression of speech not the absolute expression of speech. They are akin to newspapers or old school in real life bulletin boards or periodicals or in this day and age podcasts.

That is not to say that those social media / tech companies cannot be forced to pay a political price for their actions. The US government trust busted Microsoft over far more tenuous reasons than could be made for splitting up Facebook and Google in particular. Being in the tech sector and knowing intimately what Google is up to in several areas I can say without much hesitation that I view the company's moral and ethical direction as steeply down and it has been in that direction for a solid 4-6 years now. They are manipulating content and how or even whether it is shown with a bias. They are wringing the AdSense publisher network like a financial sponge and low balling their rates. They are starting to wring even APIs and public good services like Maps like a financial sponge. Increasingly within Google I see short term financial decisions being made with little regard to the end user or long term ethics. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but evidence to the contrary from where I'm sitting is nowhere to be found.

You lose at one level, you appeal on up to the next...SC only rules on what is brought to them - no seeking out misdeeds..thats DOJ territory:)

(06-24-2020 06:21 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='Purple' pid='16876648' dateline='1593039517']
The First Amendment has been stretched much further than simply the government restricting one's right to use words in speech or print. It is a much larger umbrella of guaranteed protection than many realize.

Do you recall the devout Christian baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the state of Colorado tried to force him to bake the cake? Congress had nothing to do with the restriction of his civil rights. It was the state of Colorado. However, the federal government did have a responsibility and duty to see that the baker's First Amendment rights were not violated. That is the point I am trying to make. And, the federal government did ultimately see it that way, the Supreme Court rejecting the Colorado law (7-2) that had denied the baker his due rights. The Supreme Court's decision had nothing to do with Congress abridging free speech. Congress was in no way involved. That is the literal language in the First Amendment. Yet, the federal government did recognize its duty to protect the baker's First Amendment rights even though Congress had made no law prohibiting those rights.

We are going to see a lot more come of this in the next few years in response to the brazen censorship happening in social media. Mark my word, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in particular, are going to be challenged on this and they are going to lose.

Quote:In the case of the baker that is the federal government overruling a state government when it comes to enforcing compliance with the Constitution.

Yep. My point was in response to mturn's belief that the First Amendment ends at Congress making no laws to abridge free speech. If the Supreme Court had believed that, they would not even hear cases like the baker's. They clearly recognize the federal government's role in guaranteeing free speech. And, it wasn't because it was a state government denying a First Amendment right. The same ruling would have been made against a corporation trying to shove its political correctness down the throat of a small businessman like the baker.

Quote:Those who bring challenges against those social media / tech companies will likely lose.

I disagree with that, mostly because I have always been a glass half full optimist, and what big tech is getting away with is an egregious wrong that must be corrected. If those who challenge big tech lose, it will only be because of the huge piles of money Silicon Valley floods all over K Street. That possibility certainly exists.

However, there have been challenges already. A few have been settled, like Steven Crowder's, probably because such suits are just a nuisance and distraction to big tech, so they would rather settle a $10 million lawsuit rather than spend the energy and resources to defend it. $10 million is lunch money to the likes of Herr Suckitberg and Jackoff Dorsey.

Quote:That is not to say that those social media / tech companies cannot be forced to pay a political price for their actions. The US government trust busted Microsoft over far more tenuous reasons than could be made for splitting up Facebook and Google in particular. Being in the tech sector and knowing intimately what Google is up to in several areas I can say without much hesitation that I view the company's moral and ethical direction as steeply down and it has been in that direction for a solid 4-6 years now. They are manipulating content and how or even whether it is shown with a bias. They are wringing the AdSense publisher network like a financial sponge and low balling their rates. They are starting to wring even APIs and public good services like Maps like a financial sponge. Increasingly within Google I see short term financial decisions being made with little regard to the end user or long term ethics. Just my opinion, I could be wrong, but evidence to the contrary from where I'm sitting is nowhere to be found.

I agree with all of that! I am a publisher, a "patriot publisher," as I refer to myself. I am an ex-Army officer and I have a deep love for this country of ours. Some here consider me little more than a dangerous jingoist, but I'm not.

I am all too familiar with the shenanigans of Google. Adsense was once my biggest advertiser. My site was once generating five figures a month in ad revenue from a dozen or so advertisers, one of which was Adsense. And, the growth trajectory was due north. That was 2016. I supported Candidate Trump from the now-famous escalator ride. He and his staff were readers of my blog, and still are, even though I publish only an article a week now, compared to the seven or eight articles I published daily back then. Trump tweeted one of my articles to the world in February, 2016, which drew the derision of MSM talking heads like George Stephanopoulos. We were rocking until the election and Donald Trump shocked the world.

The left and their Silicon Valley soldiers had been asleep at the wheel and underestimated the power of the right-wing blogosphere and the seismic paradigm shift that saw news and commentary market share bleed from the mainstream media to the blogoshphere and sites like mine.

After the 2016 presidential election, Silicon Valley vowed they were going to shut down the right-wing blogosphere. They have largely succeeded. My once five-figure monthly income is now a few hundred dollars. Luckily, I have investments that are helping us survive. Many patriot publishers were not so fortunate. Undercapitalized to weather the storm, they have gone out of business. I am shadow-banned on Twitter, Facebook has deleted all six of my pages, including my main page which had over 300,000 followers, and Google deleted my Adsense account and ensures that my site does not appear anywhere near the first page of searches.

I am not the only "patriot publisher" this has happened to. It has happened to almost all of us. There is clearly an ideological struggle underway in America. Who knows where it will end, but in the meantime I get up every day and fight as hard as I can for what I believe in.

Go, Dukes!

That is a pretty scary fable...wow.

Can you post or PM your site?

Purple, Purple, Purple.

I didn’t think we’d have to go back to the beginning to make you understand the 1st amendment but apparently we do. States, cities, counties, police stations, municipal libraries, public schools and universities as well as the federal executive branch, all its agencies and of course congress are considered the government with regards to the 1st amendment. When the small town courthouse posts the Ten Commandments on their walls obviously it wasn’t an act of Congress as the literal words of the constitution prescribe that did that but SCOTUS has interpreted that act as having established a religion. The same is true for speech (there are plenty of carve outs of course with threats and such and public schools have fair leeway in making rules in order to complete their mission). But in general if any one of these entities gives a platform to someone then they better be prepared to let every other nut in the nuthouse do the same. That’s government. Whether they’re decrees, rules, regulations or legislation by congress they can’t infringe upon the citizens right to free speech. They shouldn’t have their finger on the scale.

Now me? A free citizen (which extends to private organizations and corporations)? If I build a stage I don’t have to let you speak on it. Absolutely not. There are exceptions to every rule though. The equal time and fairness doctrines imposed by the FCC were allowed by the SCOTUS for companies holding a broadcast license. So they’re compelled to allow equal time for each political candidate that requests it. The reasoning was that in a world with a few major broadcasters transmitting information then a few private companies would have undo influence over elections. We no longer live in that world really, with the World Wide Web any jackhole that registers a domain name can have a voice, as you’ve attested to. But as capitalism is like to do it eventually eats itself and destroys competition so now the net is rigged and unless you actually type in http://www.Purplesnuthouse.com then your page is not likely to be found. Too few players control too many elements to create a free market. Which leads us back to GTS’ argument regarding trust busting.

But let’s be clear, this is not a 1st amendment or free speech issue. This is a monopoly and free trade issue. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, whatever the hell the kids are into these days. There’s plenty of options for social media controlled by different entities. If they want to express bias they pretty much can and it’s on you to build a popular site to rival them. Just as newspapers of different ilks have held bias forever and even NBC, ABC and CBS could give equal time to each candidate then editorialize in favor of one or the other for the rest of the day. Mostly they want to have the appearance of being impartial as not to piss off 50% of their clientele, it’s not that they have to or are required to under the 1st amendment. It’s just good business. The same is true for the social media companies until of course Donny J Trump came along. He’s beyond the pale man. They tried, hell FB is still trying but Twitter finally had to do it. They’re not required by anyone to let him spread propaganda using their platform. Misleading information from the man who holds the most powerful position in the world. Trust me, they wish they weren’t in that position but they’re feeling pressure on multiple sides. Between privacy concerns, reaching beyond just being a social media platform and bringing up monopoly concerns and the fact that half of your “patriot publishers” were actually based in St Petersburg (not Florida) their backs up against the wall but your boy is off the reservation.

But I digress. I didn’t want this to be a political issue but simply a civics discussion regarding the first amendment. Inevitably it was bound to come up that your views of the 1st amendment being infringed by private entities are based off the fact that Twitter doesn’t let you detail how Hillary Clinton eats the skin off babies anymore. But if we are to extend your maxim that the government is complicit in 1st amendment violations for not regulating fair play amongst private citizens then shouldn’t we extend that beyond large media companies to cake bakers as well? This is the constitution we’re talking about, not FCC regulations after all. The bedrock of our free society. Shouldn’t they compel bakers to make cakes saying “I Love Big Dongs”? Of course not. Nobody should believe that. And that wasn’t the issue in the Oregon baker case. The question there is whether he can refuse the same cake he’d gladly make for a hetero couple to a homosexual couple. It was a pretty narrow ruling as I recall based on the facts that he made each cake to order and Oregon didn’t give him his due process. And if it were because they were mixed race (which used to be a deeply held religious belief) forget it, open and shut. That case had something to do with the 1st amendment in freedom of religion but nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. It’d be nice if we could let the free markets decide these things but that Pandora’s Box was opened during the civil rights era and being gay will soon be a protected class the same as race, age, sex, etc. It already is for employment at least. So again we’re off topic other than to say it was the government that the SCOTUS ruled against, not a private organization. Twitter doesn’t have to play fair. They try but man some people just make it so hard.

Go Monarchs!

(06-25-2020 12:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Purple, Purple, Purple.

I didn’t think we’d have to go back to the beginning to make you understand the 1st amendment but apparently we do. States, cities, counties, police stations, municipal libraries, public schools and universities as well as the federal executive branch, all its agencies and of course congress are considered the government with regards to the 1st amendment.

I see. So, you were all literal about the First Amendment in the beginning, and now that your horsesh!t has been rubbed in your face, you want to say, "Oh, wait a minute, Purple, I didn't mean that what the First Amendment literally says, 'Congress,' means only Congress. Heck no. 'Congress' now means states and cities and counties and anything I damned well want it to mean."

And, the case I was referring to was in Colorado, not Oregon, as I stated in my post, above. It isn't surprising that your attention to detail is that deficient.

(06-24-2020 02:24 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  "The government is the only entity that can restrict your first amendment rights."

@Mturn - a slight but important retake on this .... the gov't can TRY to restrict our constitutional rights, but they are limited in those powers. Amendments are for protecting us from them, never the other way around!

(06-24-2020 03:14 PM)KickItToScotty Wrote:  I think what he meant is that only the government can restrict your speech in a way that you’d be correct in calling it a violation of your first amendment rights. Get arrested for a racist tweet, time to scream about free speech and the first amendment. Get banned by twitter, fired by your boss, or disowned by your family for it... Not so much.

(06-24-2020 03:24 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  Ah...i get it now, thanks for clarifying (assuming you are correct)

Yes. That's about right. The government can't legally restrict your freedom of speech except in limited ways (threats, etc.) but they are the only ones you can claim are restricting your free speech. I see my wording could have been better.

(06-25-2020 12:27 AM)Purple Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 12:05 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Purple, Purple, Purple.

I didn’t think we’d have to go back to the beginning to make you understand the 1st amendment but apparently we do. States, cities, counties, police stations, municipal libraries, public schools and universities as well as the federal executive branch, all its agencies and of course congress are considered the government with regards to the 1st amendment.

I see. So, you were all literal about the First Amendment in the beginning, and now that your horsesh!t has been rubbed in your face, you want to say, "Oh, wait a minute, Purple, I didn't mean that what the First Amendment literally says, 'Congress,' means only Congress. Heck no. 'Congress' now means states and cities and counties and anything I damned well want it to mean."

And, the case I was referring to was in Colorado, not Oregon, as I stated in my post, above. It isn't surprising that your attention to detail is that deficient.

Uh huh. Wow. Well.

(06-24-2020 10:06 PM)Purple Wrote:  Yep. My point was in response to mturn's belief that the First Amendment ends at Congress making no laws to abridge free speech. If the Supreme Court had believed that, they would not even hear cases like the baker's. They clearly recognize the federal government's role in guaranteeing free speech. And, it wasn't because it was a state government denying a First Amendment right. The same ruling would have been made against a corporation trying to shove its political correctness down the throat of a small businessman like the baker.

I never said Congress, I said government. The bolded part is where you are mistaken and what we've been arguing about. Why? I don't know. I enjoy a good debate and putting JMU fans in their place but this is starting to feel like beating up 5th grader. Is there anyone else here that wants to take up this position? I reckon not because it's ludicrous. By all means though Purple, continue on. Free speech and all.

At least you're not alone in misunderstanding the Constitution Purple.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/leader-of-g...40616.html