| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
You need to recall that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were/are based on 2 diametrically opposing principles. Yanks think you need to be protected from evil guys who want to use the power that Government gives to rule. The French thought the government was there to protect the people from themselves. One assumes man is prone to temptation. The other assumes Man is inherently Good. That's a massive oversimplification, but the result of each Bloody Revolution were massively different. In the Americas, there was some harassment and death threats to Crown Loyalists, and a diaspora of them to Canada and England. It did not go smoothly and there were hard feelings. In France they began a Reign Of Terror with Public executions of the former aristocracy, both for entertainment and to terrorize the Enemies OF the Holy State. When they ran low on Aristocrats, they kept on murdering for fun and revenge and entertainment, but the victims were folk that angered the Revolutionaries, or were informed on by the Mob... It's a hell scape that we are seeing dimly in Cancel Culture. When the Mob goes wild, all the hidden feuds and grievances come out. That guy who had sex with your daughter and dumped her? Your landlord? The guy who didn't return your lawn mower! You sic the Mob on them, and Revenge is Sweet Baby! It's Facebook's property. They offer a service. If they want to ban Pizza with pineapple, that's their business. But that legal status in the US has legal costs. A "Platform" that offers open access is not liable for the posts made by the participants. The Zuck didn't have anything to do with the ( imaginary example ) Nazi Lesbian Meme, so he shouldn't be penalized by law or lawsuit. A "Publisher" controls the content, and CAN be penalized for his content. The Nazi Lesbians can sue if they are offended, and if the Judge can be convinced the Meme was not a parody, but is a known to be dishonest call to violence against, or defamation of willful harm, the Nazi Lesbians might win a judgment, ranging from an apology, to a big fat check. Facebook, etc. wants it both ways, and has openly bribed ONE PARTY with Voting Fraud Aid and Free Lies to keep their status of Protected Platform, when they are clearly now a Propaganda Publisher responsible for their policies and content. European Subjects and American Citizens may see these things differently, and the LAWS are very different. | ||
| Sami |
Jef, of course Facebook comes into it. Big Tech is persecuting people for things they don't like. If you say something "wrong" on their platforms, then you risk losing your livelihood. Big Tech = Big Brother.  The job of the government is basically two-fold: 1. Protect the border. 2. Protect the people against violations of their rights. Corporations such as Facebook should not be allowed to violate 1 or 2. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
Sami, looks like we are simply not going to agree on this. We both see it differently, and neither one of us is going to move off our respective positions. That being the case, I see no point in continuing the conversation. I'm out. | ||
| Hootowl |
“ The job of the government is basically two-fold:” Where in the constitution does it say the job of government is to protect the people from censorship? You appear to be making stuff up. You keep telling me what the role of government is, but you appear to misunderstand our founding documents. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I've been watching this unfold.... 1. "Freedom of speech" means you have the right to say whatever you want, right or wrong, as long as you do not threaten the safety of others. No "fire" in a theatre, etc. You don't have to be right; you can be wrong. Nobody can stop you - THAT is freedom of speech. If I want to go around screaming "two plus two is FIVE", nobody can stop me...until I endanger another person, try to force my opinion upon them, or disturb the peace with my pronouncements. 2. Government's job is to provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens. Period. HOW they do that, is where we end up with government overreach. They are not here to pay my bills; they are not here to make sure I don't burn myself on the stove. They are here to protect me from enemies both foreign and domestic, and give me the free ABILITY to provide for the health, happiness, and safety of myself and my family, as I see fit. 3. Fakebook can do whatever the hell they want...within the boundaries of the terms of service that all their users agree to. You sign up for Fakebook, you agree to do things their way. You come into my house, you play by my rules. I go to the range, they have a "no steel case" rule. I play by their rules and only shoot brass cases while I'm there. Their house, their rules. If I don't want to play by their rules, I am free to go to another range. What Fakebook can NOT do, is discriminate. That is a big thing in the USA. You are NOT allowed to discriminate based on color, creed, gender, nationality, political, or religious beliefs. THAT is where Fakebook is coming under fire - they are discriminating against particular groups. It is not a free speech debate, it is a discrimination debate. If Fakebook changes their terms of service to say "we will not support Conservatives"...then it becomes part of their terms of service, and everyone using the service will have agreed to it. It is still discrimination, but such a statement would have two effects: first, it would alert all their users what the expectations are as far as posts and ideas go on the site; and second, it would open them up to corporate discrimination lawsuits because they have come right out and SAID "we won't allow conservative thoughts on our platform". It would also be bad business. Fakebook is NOT "press". Your freedom to say anything on their platform is NOT covered by freedom of the press in the Constitution of the United States. Basically what it comes down to is...if you don't like Fakebook, don't use it. I don't go near it. My business does fine without it; my social life does fine without it. It is NOT the lifeblood of existence like they would have you believe. | ||
| Hootowl |
I agree with almost all of that. “discriminate based on color, creed, gender, nationality, political, or religious belief” isn’t quite right. There is no protected status for political beliefs like there is for those other things. Should there be? Yeah, probably. | ||
| Hootowl |
“of course Facebook comes into it.” Huh? Find the words “facebook” or “corporation” in the constitution. I’ll wait. | ||
| Blake |
Jeff: Big Social Media garnered market dominance and the federal government's guaranty of immunity from lawsuits involving libelous or other litigious content posted by their customers, BECAUSE they sold themselves as mere telephone, postal, or email utility type communications platforms. And they were, until recently. But then they blatantly violated that contract and turned into content editors and publishers. Either they must now be subject to lawsuits for all content on their platform, or they need to return to honoring their contract with the people and return to allowing free speech. It's not in the Constitution. It's in the contract they agreed to when granted immunity from editor/publisher liability for what people may write on their platforms. | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: "Where in the constitution does it say the job of government is to protect the people from censorship? You appear to be making stuff up. You keep telling me what the role of government is, but you appear to misunderstand our founding documents." The government has specific roles, two of which I have mentioned above. That is, border security, and rights protections. The border won't protect itself, neither do rights protect themselves. Something or someone has to protect them, or they erode away for various reasons. The government has that protective role. When corporations have the power of governments, as they often do these days (see Hungary), then it is the job of the government to step in and make sure that they do not overreach their role in society. I didn't say that "Facebook" or "corporation" is found in the constitution. That's like saying, "find the word airport in the constitution". It's not there, but that doesn't mean airports or Facebook can act irrespective of the founding documents. Airports didn't exist when the constitution was written, neither did assault rifles. Yet, airports and the use of assault rifles have to abide by the founding documents of the respective countries they operate in. An airport cannot deny you their platform for whatever reason. They need a lawful reason to deny you their platform. The same should be the case with Facebook, they cannot deny you their platform for whatever reason, rather it has to be a lawful reason. As others have pointed out, platforms such as Facebook gained traction after the government granted them immunity from lawsuits. See: Section 230 protects Big Tech from lawsuits. But it was never supposed to be bulletproof. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/12/13/s ection-230-big-tech-free-speech-donald-trump-colum n/3883191001/ (Message edited by Sami on March 29, 2021) | ||
| Sami |
Jeff: "I agree with almost all of that. “discriminate based on color, creed, gender, nationality, political, or religious belief” isn’t quite right. There is no protected status for political beliefs like there is for those other things. Should there be? Yeah, probably." Oh, but there is protection of political beliefs. It just so happens that some political beliefs are more protected than others.  | ||
| Aesquire |
Fakebook is NOT "press". Your freedom to say anything on their platform is NOT covered by freedom of the press in the Constitution of the United States. No, they Claim not to be Publishers who control content. But they do. So they Are. Thus Faceless has violated the terms of agreement with the U.S. Government. The protection against libel suits and discrimination is currently, unjustified. Unfortunately Congress is currently, by crook, Leftist and therefore won't give up their bribes. From Facebook. True, million$ of those bribes went into voter fraud promotion, but the Big Bribe is erasing their Enemies. What would you rather get? A check for a million dollars, processed and spindled to evade donation laws, that has a public record, to be spent on advertising? ( and thus a paper trail from, for example, a guy in trouble because the young black men he lures to his home to get wasted and have sex with him, keep dying when he overdoses them. There's an "old" saying in D.C. about being caught with a dead girl or a live boy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/201 4/02/20/edwin-edwardss-greatest-hits-crooks-super- pacs-and-viagra/ https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city /entry/never_get_caught_in_bed_with_a_dead_woman_o r_a_live_man ) Or a donation of erasing your opponent's advertising? No paper trail, no impact on fundraising limits. No proof of quid pro quo! | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
“ but there is protection of political beliefs. It just so happens that some political beliefs are more protected than others” I get your point, but I’m referring to civil rights law, not social media practices. | ||
| Sami |
But I was not referring to just social media practices. In all walks of life, some political beliefs are more protected than others. The problem is bigger than Big Tech. And if you don't believe me, here is the father of the New Left, Herbert Marcuse, spelling it out for you: "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left." https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s /1965-repressive-tolerance-fulltext.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Since the Enemies Of The Party are now called Nazis, it's once again, time to point out the fact it's exactly the opposite, that The Party accused others of their crimes by strategy, habit, and mental illness. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/t he_commonalities_between_the_rise_of_the_nazis_and _the_tactics_of_the_american_left_cannot_be_ignore d.html Highly recommended read. | ||
| Ducbsa |
"Elizabeth Warren — the ridiculous hustling flatbilly grifter from Massachusetts from Oklahoma who snookered the academic establishment by pretending to be a Native American while writing dopey self-help books that are so sloppy and intellectually dishonest that it’s a surprise skeezy old Joe Biden hasn’t plagiarized them yet" https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/elizabe th-warren-is-a-ridiculous-power-hungry-crackpot/ | ||
| Aesquire |
https://lawliberty.org/the-real-threat-to-americas -constitutional-institutions/ What does it say about The Party that they deny the very existence of their own action arm? The thugs that heat up gay journalists and threaten to burn the book stores who might carry books with the truth about them. Not One Thing Good. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://nypost.com/2021/03/30/if-the-woke-have-the ir-way-soon-we-wont-have-any-culture-to-speak-of/ | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/the -week-in-cancellation-squidward-edition.php Book burning at Yale. Segregation! Systematic, systemic racism is The New Normal. If you're a Regressive. What's next? Sales of Illegal immigrant servants? | ||
| Ducbsa |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/h r_1_its_worse_than_you_think.html | ||
| Ducbsa |
"The Democrats wanted a massively bloated ‘bailout’ plan that could serve as a slush fund to reward all of their favorite special interest groups and prop up financially failing Democrat states and cities with the public purse." https://lidblog.com/planned-parenthood-ppp-money/ | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't think that Socialist Democrats would call funding their own campaigns illegally through a company dedicated to eugenics and genocide against Black Americans as terrorism. It's SOP. As you posted... https://sensingonline.blogspot.com/2021/03/vaccine -passports-are-white-supremacist.html Any system to push to restore race based servitude is going to be popular with the Klan Party. My question is, will it be a "papers, bitte" kind of regime, or will I have to wear a symbol on my mask? A gold star? Red triangle? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration _camp_badge | ||
| Ratbuell |
...and yet, the all-holy, can-do-no-wrong CDC says once you're vaccinated, you cannot get nor carry the virus... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+says+once+vaccinated +you+cannot+carry+virus&ia=web ...remind me why we still have to wear masks, there, fake Fauci?? | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Ducbsa |
"What are those offenses that a student cannot be disciplined or even arrested for as found in Section 6 of the bill? Physically attacking staff or students Disorderly conduct Theft Trespass or criminal trespass Criminal mischief including vandalism Harassment Drugs and drug possession Causing bodily injury that isn’t serious" https://victorygirlsblog.com/colorado-bill-will-le galize-crime-in-schools/ | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-parent-seeks-o k-to-marry-their-own-adult-child Called it. Marrying animals is next. Those talking buttons all the rage these days will be considered proof of consent. | ||
| Aesquire |
You speciesist! Why can't I marry the canary? She talks to me nicer than most people, understands when I feel caged in during the coronapanic, and eats my fries like every human female I've ever dated. Sure, we can't have children, but since I Identify as a gyroplane, we have more in common than most married couples! ( Joking, no bird companions ) I'm not sure the incest case qualifies for this thread, more a Patriotic American? thing. General craziness, not the Institutional Racism of the Klan Party, or the despotic greed of Party politics. Destructive to society? You've got an argument there. I admit to mild curiosity. About ages and sexes. The repeated insistence that there's no reproductive issues might imply same sex relationship, and it's certainly an interesting case for a shrink. We're missing a whole soap opera plot here. Politically, you do have the possibility that it's a Leftist destruction of marriage & substitution of the Holy State as primary loyalties & emotional connection action. Or just fairly well off loons. ( they can afford lawyers for this ) In a bizzaro alternate universe I could see this as radical libertarian movement stuff. I file this in my "none of my business" folder and wonder why it has to be shoved in our faces. Which does hint it's more political than personal. If it was just a crazy relationship thing? Sigh. My liberation libertarian view is to get government out of marriage. It's a Klan Party legacy of hatred for mixed race couples. Which has hung on since Governments Never give up power. And even if a judge decrees them legal, the relationship will, as they openly say, be poorly received by uptight society. | ||
| Hootowl |
It’s in the dem thread because they are the party of ‘marry anyone you like’ and it is part and parcel of their attack on America. |
