(08-06-2018 01:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: My thought process on this is real simple, if you support the rights of businesses like that cake guy and Hobby Lobby to make choices about how they want to run their private businesses then don’t cry now. This is the logical step from those decisions. You can’t force someone to bake a cake for a gay couple simply because he thinks that’s vile, well those companies think infowars is vile and don’t want to allow their services to spread those views. Either you can force companies to do things they don’t want or you can’t, pick a side and stick with it.
You make a compelling argument that leftism is indeed the same as religious beliefs to some.
(08-06-2018 04:24 PM)Kronke Wrote: Coordinated effort by CNN and democratic legislators (deutch, quiqley) to pressure the tech companies into action.
perfectly timed for summer recess ...
THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
So Jones thinks he's the victim
Even though he's caused grieving widows pain
Vainly said that Obama was having sex with 10 guys a day
Even called Michelle Obama a man, this month no less
No reasonable person could find his reporting to be credible
Though many unreasonable people do
Every company has the right to set their own Terms and Conditions
Except when one side disagrees, apparently
No sympathy for the Sandy Hook parents comes from him
(08-06-2018 03:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Which side is an immutable characteristic in your opinion the bakers religion or the couples sexual orientation?
freedom of religion enshrined in the bill of rights ...
FRAMEWORK
So if a cake baker were a member of the Church of Satan and turned away a couple who wanted a cake with a bible passage on it because it's against his religious beliefs is that ok?
Two ways to answer this:
1. On the surface, yes. The way "religion" is interpreted today, completely fine with it.
2. They way "religion" is interpreted today is not the same as the Founders intended it.
(08-06-2018 01:47 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote: Alex Jones is a twat. There's a supreme difference between having the freedom of speech and spreading misinformation, peddling conspiracy theories, coordinating targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies, and doing it all to profit off of website traffic and ad space. Cry about it all you want, but this is what Alex Jones is guilty of, and this is why he is being removed from these platforms. Anyone who follows and accepts Jones' vitriol as fact is a hair-brained dingus who is probably also a flat-earther.
No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.
Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.
Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.
It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.
BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2018 04:45 PM by JRsec.)
(08-06-2018 12:59 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: INFOWARS has become the first book to be burned by the media's FAHRENHEIT 451 order.
Again, you are welcome to raise 20 billion bucks to build a duplicative ISP network and spend an equal amount to build and promote video sharing and social networking platforms. Its a free market right? No one is banning his speech, they're simply refusing to promote it on their platforms.
Seriously though, he'll just move his schtick over to OAN and RT. They just don't have the viewers and members and his speech will be further marginalized. You wont be able to share his garbage on fb or on your youtube channel.
Don't Alex Jones supporters have some sort of video networking platform?
the concern here is how a public service like the internet can be controlled by private policy rather than by constitutional access.
that's the crux!
and how you legislate that should be fairly simple with existing law and decisions....
we don't need more laws....we either need revisions to existing and/or SCOTUS intervention.....
(08-06-2018 04:24 PM)Kronke Wrote: Coordinated effort by CNN and democratic legislators (deutch, quiqley) to pressure the tech companies into action.
one is living in a cave or just flat out stupid if they don't see what's going on.....
it's August now boys.....lmmfao.....
I'm telling ya', the month of August is the worst month. People are on edge. The novelty of summer has long worn off. It's bad. Wars tend to start in August throughout history.
(08-06-2018 12:59 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: INFOWARS has become the first book to be burned by the media's FAHRENHEIT 451 order.
Again, you are welcome to raise 20 billion bucks to build a duplicative ISP network and spend an equal amount to build and promote video sharing and social networking platforms. Its a free market right? No one is banning his speech, they're simply refusing to promote it on their platforms.
Seriously though, he'll just move his schtick over to OAN and RT. They just don't have the viewers and members and his speech will be further marginalized. You wont be able to share his garbage on fb or on your youtube channel.
Don't Alex Jones supporters have some sort of video networking platform?
the concern here is how a public service like the internet can be controlled by private policy rather than by constitutional access.
that's the crux!
and how you legislate that should be fairly simple with existing law and decisions....
we don't need more laws....we either need revisions to existing and/or SCOTUS intervention.....
Guys, so youre saying that a private company should be forced to promote speech that it disagrees with? Good, I'm looking forward to selling a line of abortion pills on the Hobby Lobby site or having CBN and Lifesite promote my political videos.
Guys, you are tying yourselves in knots here. There's no way to mandate that a PRIVATE company use the assets they PRIVATELY raised and invested in their own company allow someone who they don't agree with to SELL (and yes, Jones makes money off his videos) products and services they don't agree with either. And they aren't even a public accommodation either. The FCC says so.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2018 04:49 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
(08-06-2018 01:47 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote: Alex Jones is a twat. There's a supreme difference between having the freedom of speech and spreading misinformation, peddling conspiracy theories, coordinating targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies, and doing it all to profit off of website traffic and ad space. Cry about it all you want, but this is what Alex Jones is guilty of, and this is why he is being removed from these platforms. Anyone who follows and accepts Jones' vitriol as fact is a hair-brained dingus who is probably also a flat-earther.
No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.
Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.
Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.
It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.
BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.
(08-06-2018 12:59 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: INFOWARS has become the first book to be burned by the media's FAHRENHEIT 451 order.
Again, you are welcome to raise 20 billion bucks to build a duplicative ISP network and spend an equal amount to build and promote video sharing and social networking platforms. Its a free market right? No one is banning his speech, they're simply refusing to promote it on their platforms.
Seriously though, he'll just move his schtick over to OAN and RT. They just don't have the viewers and members and his speech will be further marginalized. You wont be able to share his garbage on fb or on your youtube channel.
Don't Alex Jones supporters have some sort of video networking platform?
the concern here is how a public service like the internet can be controlled by private policy rather than by constitutional access.
that's the crux!
and how you legislate that should be fairly simple with existing law and decisions....
we don't need more laws....we either need revisions to existing and/or SCOTUS intervention.....
Guys, so youre saying that a private company should be forced to promote speech that it disagrees with? Good, I'm looking forward to selling a line of abortion pills on the Hobby Lobby site or having CBN and Lifesite promote my political videos.
Guys, you are tying yourselves in knots here.
Actually, no.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.
Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.
Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.
It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.
BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.
XACLY!
This isn't the government. These are private businesses. Jones has zero recourse here, other than to whine.
(08-06-2018 03:09 PM)shere khan Wrote: Don't spoil my fun dammit. We were just started down the garden path.
Lol
he refuses to answer the question ...
SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES
Which side is an immutable characteristic in your opinion the bakers religion or the couples sexual orientation?
you really don't understand the difference.....
one could argue brick and mortar vs. the ethereal is synonymous....but you'd be wrong....
there's a difference between religious rights vs.monopolizing the media that is the internutz.....
hopefully congress and the SCOTUS will help move that along quick like....
this was all part of the equation going in when DJT picked the fight with the MSM.....people like you simply tend to focus on the tidbits and knee-jerk yourselves to death......
hell, that's why I come here exclusively.....too many of y'all crack me the fk up.....
this board is a hodge-podge of porridge, pudding, and pie.....
So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?
Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.
And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.
(08-06-2018 12:59 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: INFOWARS has become the first book to be burned by the media's FAHRENHEIT 451 order.
Again, you are welcome to raise 20 billion bucks to build a duplicative ISP network and spend an equal amount to build and promote video sharing and social networking platforms. Its a free market right? No one is banning his speech, they're simply refusing to promote it on their platforms.
Seriously though, he'll just move his schtick over to OAN and RT. They just don't have the viewers and members and his speech will be further marginalized. You wont be able to share his garbage on fb or on your youtube channel.
Don't Alex Jones supporters have some sort of video networking platform?
the concern here is how a public service like the internet can be controlled by private policy rather than by constitutional access.
that's the crux!
and how you legislate that should be fairly simple with existing law and decisions....
we don't need more laws....we either need revisions to existing and/or SCOTUS intervention.....
Guys, so youre saying that a private company should be forced to promote speech that it disagrees with? Good, I'm looking forward to selling a line of abortion pills on the Hobby Lobby site or having CBN and Lifesite promote my political videos.
Guys, you are tying yourselves in knots here.
how's that? I've been consistent with every post starting with this one.....and I never watch the motherfk'r.....
I rely on Kronke for his rhetoric.....
see post #33 (and that's wayyyyy late for me.....I'm almost always in early)
then read through my posts.....then present and objective argument en macro.....
you won't.....hardly any on your side ever does......what's funny is I admit when I'm off base......but you haven't figured that out yet girlie troll.....
you be best served to put me on ignore again for the next few months.....
told ya I could play this game however ya wanted......your choice pal.....
(08-06-2018 03:13 PM)green Wrote: he refuses to answer the question ...
SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES
Which side is an immutable characteristic in your opinion the bakers religion or the couples sexual orientation?
you really don't understand the difference.....
one could argue brick and mortar vs. the ethereal is synonymous....but you'd be wrong....
there's a difference between religious rights vs.monopolizing the media that is the internutz.....
hopefully congress and the SCOTUS will help move that along quick like....
this was all part of the equation going in when DJT picked the fight with the MSM.....people like you simply tend to focus on the tidbits and knee-jerk yourselves to death......
hell, that's why I come here exclusively.....too many of y'all crack me the fk up.....
this board is a hodge-podge of porridge, pudding, and pie.....
So it’s completely impossible to start a competeing social media platform or video streaming service? So net neutrality is bad because monopolies are bad?
Its the wrong question. If a monopoly exists, you have an issue. Barriers of entry are high. Impossibility is not a necessity.
And Net neutrality is a totally different thing. Its about priority service.
What barriers to entry are there to starting a video streaming site? Very few. What Jones wants is access to all the people that those companies have on their platforms. People and traffic that all 3 companies spent literally billions collecting.
And I'm glad that since impossibility is not a necessity, that we can get all the hospitals that don't have competition to provide admitting rights for abortion providers. I'm thinking that its about as hard for Alex Jones to create a new fb, than it would be for an abortion provider to gain access to some (loosely affiliated ) religious hospital in a one hospital town.
Demanding fb, Youtube, and Apple broadcast Alex Jones is about the same as demanding Sinclair and Fox News allow liberals to just take over a part of their prime time broadcast for their own purposes.
(This post was last modified: 08-06-2018 04:59 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
I would have purged Infowars as well. His crap do not need any attention at all. He is just a horses behind that needs to just shut up with his conspiracy theories that causes harm to others. His ilk are the kind that Sandy Hook parents are getting death threats from weirdos who listen to his shows.
No, I'm aware that he is being sued. I'm also aware of how frivolous the lawsuit is, how many of the claims against him are outside the statute of limitations (going back to 2012), how difficult it is to proof defamation, and how he will probably win.
Anyone can sue him, that doesn't mean he's guilty.
Show me the proof of what I bolded, your claim that he "coordinated targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies". That's complete and utter nonsense.
It's a financial attack more than a legal challenge. Left leaning donors gives to the attorneys fund for the plaintiff and if these are numerous enough, and protracted enough they can spend the one being sued into oblivion.
BTW: The right has done the same thing. As as municipalities in taking little old widow women's homes (as in Boston) by tying up people who can't afford legal representation with imminent domain cases so that the land could be sold by the city for commercial purposes. The projected sales tax became the basis for the claim that the US Supreme Court upheld under Bush. The threat of lawsuit by corporate entities over patents is a long and checkered one as well. Financial bullying occurs across the board! That's what happens in a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.
XACLY!
This isn't the government. These are private businesses. Jones has zero recourse here, other than to whine.
trust me....the internutz is not a 'private business' when viewership share is over 95+%....
watch what happens in congress moving forward.....they're going to redefine how/what/who/can happen.......it's coming....
if you can't grasp that concept, then shame on you bubby.....
(08-06-2018 04:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Guys, so youre saying that a private company should be forced to promote speech that it disagrees with? Good, I'm looking forward to selling a line of abortion pills on the Hobby Lobby site or having CBN and Lifesite promote my political videos.
Guys, you are tying yourselves in knots here. There's no way to mandate that a PRIVATE company use the assets they PRIVATELY raised and invested in their own company allow someone who they don't agree with to SELL (and yes, Jones makes money off his videos) products and services they don't agree with either. And they aren't even a public accommodation either. The FCC says so.
apple, alphabet, twitter, facebook are publicly traded companies ...
(08-06-2018 04:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote: I would have purged Infowars as well. His crap do not need any attention at all. He is just a horses behind that needs to just shut up with his conspiracy theories that causes harm to others. His ilk are the kind that Sandy Hook parents are getting death threats from weirdos who listen to his shows.
/
Coordinated Purge: Infowars Simultaneously Banned From Youtube, Apple, & Facebook
