Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

21 - 40 of 84 Posts

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,625 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Trump literally has a press room *in his house*.

He hasn't been *silenced*, he simply never learned how *to be a President*.

(That's why I never worried about "the nuclear codes" and the like... there is NO WAY he was paying attention when that stuff was explained to him.)

DH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Twitter and facebook, and anyone blocking parler including Google and Apple must be shut down immediately. This an absolutely egregious attack and violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with this is a danger to this nation. They should be arrested and tried for treason as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone who things anything differently is also a traitor and should be treated as such.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Twitter and facebook, and anyone blocking parler including Google and Apple must be shut down immediately. This an absolutely egregious attack and violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with this is a danger to this nation. They should be arrested and tried for treason as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone who things anything differently is also a traitor and should be treated as such.
If Twitter, FB, et. al. blocked Parler because Congress passed a law requiring them to do so, *then* we can start talking about the First Amendment.

Otherwise not, because it's not a free speech issue.

DH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,162 Posts
Actually, it is a monopoly anti-trust issue.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,804 Posts
Twitter and facebook, and anyone blocking parler including Google and Apple must be shut down immediately. This an absolutely egregious attack and violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with this is a danger to this nation. They should be arrested and tried for treason as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone who things anything differently is also a traitor and should be treated as such.
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech from government infringement. You have no right to free speech on a private platforms. You also agreed to all their rules when you agreed to the terms of service. When you agreed to the TOS you granted them permission to change the rules
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech from government infringement. You have no right to free speech on a private platforms. You also agreed to all their rules when you agreed to the terms of service. When you agreed to the TOS you granted them permission to change the rules
Then they should be open to civil liability now protected by Section 230. And they will be able to afford to defend themselves against all of the lawsuits that will be filed on them.

The also need to be broken up because of monopoly laws.

What we really need is a couple of goofy nerds deciding what is important for people in this country to read. They need to be destroyed and buried for their actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech from government infringement. You have no right to free speech on a private platforms. You also agreed to all their rules when you agreed to the terms of service. When you agreed to the TOS you granted them permission to change the rules
So then we should allow Georgia Power to shut off power to the houses, businesses of anyone they deem to not be spreading the right message? Because what's the difference between the internet and a power company? I know, you're going to argue Twitter isn't an ISP, but then what if Comcast and ATT take the same stance? Then after the ISPs, it's no great leap to the power companies, gas, water, if they're private.
 

·
Atlanta Overwatch
Joined
·
13,804 Posts
Don’t forget that you signed a legally binding contract to use their services. You agreed to follow their rules, and gave them permission to change the rules.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,716 Posts
If Georgia Power is the only option some folks have, and if they are required by law to have power hooked up, then so much for a "mutual" contract.

Don't forget that you signed a legally binding contract to use their services. You agreed to follow their rules, and gave them permission to change the rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
Don't forget that you signed a legally binding contract to use their services. You agreed to follow their rules, and gave them permission to change the rules.
Did you read this ?
"they should be open to civil liability now protected by Section 230. And they will be able to afford to defend themselves against all of the lawsuits that will be filed on them."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,162 Posts
As a friend of mine posted: You trusted free platforms run by for-profit companies. What did you expect?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adam5

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,177 Posts
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech from government infringement. You have no right to free speech on a private platforms. You also agreed to all their rules when you agreed to the terms of service. When you agreed to the TOS you granted them permission to change the rules
Ok, fair enough. But what if the private platform breaks the rules allowing them Section 230 protections?

Folks that are familiar with Facebook and Twitter will readily recall an "algorithm malfunction" a few months back. Conservatives were being deplatformed and shadow banned.

We now know the official explanation given by the CEO's of the companies doing this was nothing but bovine excrement.
 

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
I think it should be clear to everybody, if it wasn't already, that there is no intention to "unify the country" as stated several times before the election. It's just a declaration of war with no prisoners to be taken.
 

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
A possible solution that we can already see on the horizon is stopping social media's ability to censor its content. This is not by eliminating Section 230, but by establishing a government body, super partes, to carry out this role. This solution, besides being already known, is also the most dangerous. Zuckeberg and Co. in this film may look like useful idiots, however these actors are perfectly aware of what they are allowing to happen. At the end of the day, what matters to them is the financial result, they probably can't care less of the fact that their media are censored by state agencies especially if they can say: "Don't blame us, don’t you see what you have done?".
Obviously, those who propose it do not want to understand the difference between a censorship exercised by an entrepreneur or his teams on his media, which is totally legitimate and constitutional even if today totally polluted by the legislative system (Section 230), and the one exercised by the government or one of its bodies, which would be totally illegitimate and unconstitutional, no matter how much you want to dream it is super-partes. I emphasize the last part. Even if there were the possibility of having a government body capable of guaranteeing absolute impartiality, their simple existence would already be illegitimate and unconstitutional. This concept also remains valid from a practical point of view as well: what is impartial today may not be so tomorrow. But this is just a detail, the whole idea is simply wrong, period. The ultimate goal is therefore to obtain complete control of Internet communication by the government and now we have finally reached the point where both Washington's left and Washington's right will agree. The former will be able to say that it is absolutely necessary to put a stop to violent retoric, the latter will say that Big Tech cannot be allowed to exclude the conservative dialectic. In short, they will do it for us.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,099 Posts
I think the only time a private entity's choice to censor the content of speech would be a possible 1st Amendment violation would be if the government urged or pressured the private communications service to do that censorship.

Now, if the tort laws of the US or some State were such that there were a REALISTIC chance, a serious possibility, that Twitter or Facebook or some other service provider could be FOUND LIABLE in court, or penalized by some government agency, for failing to censor certain things, then I'd argue that the government is censoring it, and the 1st Amendment applies. Which would mean there is a very high standard for banning speech--the speech must be so highly offensive and likely to harm people that it falls outside 1st Amendment protection under existing law and published court rulings.

I don't think what Trump has said on Twitter comes close to crossing that line, into non-protected speech, and therefore these private communications platforms CANNOT reasonably fear being held accountable for what Trump said, so then it really is a private matter. Private companies can choose NOT to do business with Trump.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,177 Posts
Ok, this is a question I have trying to get answered in a way I can understand it. If a certified interpreter refuses to interpret what someone has said, because that interpreter feels what was said may "upset" the person they are interpreting to, should that interpreter lose their certification?

The interpreter has a right to not be an interpreter. They can do something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TimBob

·
PawPaw x 3
Joined
·
8,441 Posts
Ok, this is a question I have trying to get answered in a way I can understand it. If a certified interpreter refuses to interpret what someone has said, because that interpreter feels what was said may "upset" the person they are interpreting to, should that interpreter lose their certification?

The interpreter has a right to not be an interpreter. They can do something else.
I would think so. Can't do the job honestly and openly then sail on brethren.
 
21 - 40 of 84 Posts
Top