Democrat?
It stopped being democrat a long time ago, call it what it is, a progressive, that means commie subvertion machine.
Is not just the states, they are going after everone!!!!
What is the difference between an outside entity asking for information to be removed and the CEO of the company asking for information to be removed? It is a violation, this comment is only plausible under the section 230 protections granted to internet companies allowing them to not be considered publishers but instead as hosts for content. So the government allowed these internet companies to remove what they wanted when they wanted for whatever reason that they wanted making it the perfect vessel to "legally" (it isn't) sensor speech online. The whole thing is unconstitutional and elon trying to use that stinks to high heaven.
Bingo, it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution. This is going to get some kind of fun I feel. So many layers of corruption. As if they were not already in hot water for violating their oaths.
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
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.
Strawman argument. We are talking about a company not an individual. And yeah - if you write a book and I want to put something in it you can say no and I have no right to put my speech in that book. It is your book. Same with Twitter - it is their company and their rules.
Just like here - mods can ban you or remove comments.
It isn't a straw man, corporations get to enjoy benefits of person hood under the law until the law says that they can not do what they want. If I do not hold the right to hinder your free speech then you do not have the right to hinder mine, arbitrary rules to "maintain order" are not law and are not enforceable under the law and have been illegally upheld as law by corporations with the aid of the government for far too long.
Mods can remove what they want, that isn't the argument though. It isn't legal to remove unless it infringes on other peoples rights. The hope is that no one would ever argue it correctly in court but it is not legal just because they say it is and the 14th amendment dun fucked em good!
A) The people should not be forced to pay for subsidies through tax benefits and grants, which Twitter has received, because then the government has stuck their fingers into it
B) The government CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BY PROXY.
Did Twitter censor the laptop story based on requests of the Biden team prior to Jan 20 swearing in? If requests were made before that date then censorship was done under request of a citizen and not "the government". We might be looking at a "shady but not illegal" situation.
This is true - both parts. We also shouldn't have to pay for Ukraine, or abortions overseas, or other foreign aid, or a million other things.
And yeah - I 100% agree with (B) as well. The govt is breaking the law (on almost everything they do). That is actually what I said above: Government can't force corporations to censor speech. Just like they got slapped down for trying to push vax mandates by getting OSHA to go after companies. Government is usually corrupt, but this one makes normal governments blush.
it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution
It is not possible for corporations to violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about what corporations (or any non-government entity) may or may not do.
What is important is that the government can't USE corporations to violate the constitution, but it must also ALLOW corporations to do the same things on their own.
It is not possible for corporations to violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about what corporations (or any non-government entity) may or may not do.
Excuse me? Corporations are not people and are beholden to the government and all Laws that the government is beholden to. Unless you want to argue that Twitter is a person in which case they would also be beholden to not infringing on the rights of others. I do not see a win for this. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
It was laid out by him spamming that the Truth will regain confidence. Baiting. I hate it. Good things are happening, not gonna lie but I have seen some shady business so gotta stay on the toes.
The difference is not if it's an outside entity or internal. The difference is if the outside entity is the government. The reason for this difference is that the government is legally bound by different rules, particularly the first amendment.
Morally speaking there isn't much difference.
Regarding section 230, I agree. If these companies censor information to this degree, then they should be considered publishers and thus held legally responsible for any illegal content that gets posted on their site.
The way section 230 should work is the website has no terms of service as to what can and cannot be posted. You can post whatever you want. And the onus to remove illegal content goes on law enforcement. Why would it be the platform's job to remove illegal content? That's law enforcement's job. And law enforcement has actual oversight, even if that oversight may have some flaws, and are bound by the constitution. Some oversight is better than the current zero oversight that the companies themselves have.
I like your suggestion for 230. It bothered me early on to have to report it to the host who would have to already know about it, I got blocked for stupid opinions within moments of posting them. You can then try the FBI but their site is not user friendly and didn't allow for an easy way to alert them anonymously, local law didn't care about local things so I wasn't going to bother with them...
The thing is that I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor and the consensus seems to be that Corporations can and that simply cannot be true. That would mean that Corporations are allowed to do as they please unchecked by anything and that would mean that the government isn't upholding it's obligation to the people and that makes me big sad....
I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor
I disagree. The constitution, legally speaking, only applies to the government(s). It does not apply directly to you. There may be other laws you are violating, which are applicable to you, if you do something that happens to violate your neighbor's constitutional rights, but the violation is not because you're violating their constitutional rights. There are instances where you can violate their constitutional rights just the same as a corporation can.
For example, if your neighbor enters your property and says something derogatory about your girlfriend. You are legally allowed to kick them out of your property and, if they don't oblige, have them trespassed. If the government did the same thing (i.e. if a person walked into a public park and said something derogatory about the government, so the government had them trespassed), that would be illegal.
The same goes for Twitter.
It's not about violating the Constitution. It's about them doing something that is morally wrong, and should be illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be directly illegal, as that is potentially a violation of the company's rights to do what they want with their property. This is why the section 230 solution is so great. It doesn't make censorship directly illegal, but it means the company is liable for illegal content posted if they choose to censor.
And it makes sense in the spirit of the law. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that if something is posted on Facebook without a fact check banner or being removed, and is a particularly "spicy" take where you'd expect Facebook to have fact checked or removed it, that Facebook had tried to fact check it and came up empty, so it stayed. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that a spicy post on Facebook that doesn't have a fact check banner is verified by Facebook. That's how prominently they censor. So they should be held partially liable if something is, for example, libelous.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
In the spirit of the law a corporation is a person and they do not get any more rights than I do as a person. I am not allowed to silence my neighbor.... If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse. That person might be removed for a time even. Why is that any different for a corporation? Why is it everywhere I look everyone but the common man has all these extra privileges that I am not afforded? The Law was written for the common man, so that he might stay himself in a world that was all about incorporation and conformity.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
Yes.
Did you not read my comment?
If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse.
You have legal recourse if what they did was illegal, not because it violated your constitutional rights. Read my example above for an instance of when something may be legal, but still a violation of constitutional rights, but is still allowed.
Yeah but what many also do not get is that is a gray area. I wish it were not and it should not be. We know what is right and wrong, but being ruled by luciferians everything is inverted so we can't go by " right or wrong ", so the Constitution and Laws must be our guide. At least until we reinstall common sense morally conscious humans who understand true definitions of words.
The bastards who rule over us cannot even accurately define a man and woman.
Grey area?
How is that a grey area, they took commands from governamental offices, to silence opposition.
I'm not very familiar to your laws, that's true, but there aren't any law that clarify that receiving direct orders from the government, make you an arm of the government or a governamental asset?
Something along those lines?.
I agree with you and OP above me. However ANYTHING other than something written in law is " gray area ", because those who rule over us are wordsmiths and psychos. They change the very definition of words.
Not the best example but here is 1. We know pedophilia is 100% wrong, but yet laws are being made to make it legal, protect pedos, and vilify those who fight against it.
OP said this " This is what people don't get. It's not always about what is legal or not. It's also about what's right or wrong. "
I wish and want it to be that simple, but I pay consequences if I start smoking traitors and pedos, even tho I would be right with moral high ground, cuz murder is illegal and all. That is what I meant about " gray area ".
I mean to say, that they are taking actual cues from people in political positions, that means any and all governamental bodies, all it takes is to be a progressive, and boom, you can silence oposition, silence scandals for your side, demonize your oposition, or the regular joe and jane on the street, and the negative is not the only thing you can do, you can push fake news, you can lie about the oposition, that is an actual fucking art, you can make it that any kind of mistake committed by your oposition even if justifiable.
And the government tercerized that to the private sector, via the corporations.
So if it's the "Biden team" that asked for the info to be removed, this would be considered a political candidate colluding with a private company. Does anyone know the legality here, compared to colluding with the government itself? Kayleigh, part of the Trump admin at the time, got her account taken down, so this could potentially add to the severity of it?
Honestly I'm not certain that Twitter could even be charged with election interference for deciding to censor something from their own platform.
The Biden team probably could be prosecuted for something but I'm not sure what. Remember they weren't in the government when they were campaigning. Now if they can connect someone that was actually government at the time, like a judge, a congressman or DOJ/State official then they would be in serious trouble.
Uh - yeah. WTF are you talking about - wearing masks? I know some wore masks on J6 because they expected tear gas. Aside from that, if they wear masks in public it is likely because the corrupt DOJ is charging them with sedition.
Oath Keepers are patriots that keep their police/military oaths and promise to disobey any orders that go against the constitution.
No its not. Here is the 1st Amendment again - notice it only mentions Congress (which I believe was interpreted by SCOTUS as Government):
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.
Private businesses/Corporations can't violate the first because they are not government.
Taking money from the govt doesn't make a company government. If it did, farmers, energy companies, airlines, rail, banks, and even people that got tax breaks due to natural disasters would be government. This is not that hard to understand.
And again - you are right govt can't violate the constitution by proxy. In this case the stuff that was published today seemed to be dealing with the Biden campaign. Campaign - i.e. they were not yet government. If however someone that was actually government was also involved then they broke the law and should be hammered. I believe someone in the government did help the campaign, but the campaign was not government and not subject to the 1st amendment.
Enough with the retard stuff - that was a dick comment.
Enough with the retard stuff - that was a dick comment.
True, but I have had enough of libertarians standing by while it got to this point.
But the fact remains that the government cannot provide incentive or demand in any fashion -- any fashion -- for a company to censor on their behalf. That would fall under the "abridging" line.
Apologies, but it's a frustrating subject in general.
No worries. I think we are both actually saying the same thing.
And it's not just the libertarians - RINOs sold us out and they are by far harder to deal with and get rid of (Lisa Murkowski for example). Libertarians are often closer to conservatives or constitutionalists than RINOs are. I agree with a little bit of what libertarians believe (as long as it doesn't conflict with my conservative ideals), and in many cases I'd rather have a libertarian in congress over a RINO. We would probably have less spending and regulation. RINOs always bend over at the first sign of conflict, or they stab you in the back (like McConnell and McCarthy).
Term limits, and a completely new House and Senate with a ban for 1 or 2 terms on everyone currently serving would fix a lot of problems.
I have some serious questions from you. you say government cant violate by proxy then what about j6. They let people in the front door, then arrested them. Please tell me what you think about the oath keepers.
I already said the Oath Keepers are patriots. They are made up of ex cops and ex military. If you think it is weird that they wore masks to J6 I don't know what to say to you. I'm pretty sure ex cops and ex military would properly prepare to go to something that they knew would devolve into violence. It was likely not their first time wearing gas masks. I know I had to do the gas mask training overseas when I was military. I carried my chem gear with me in my car for 2 years while I was stationed in Europe, and we had plenty of chemical exercises. If you think that because the govt went after and arrested oath keepers I'd suggest you remember the govt also went after soccer moms going to school board meetings, and classified them as domestic terrorists.
As for the government violating the Constitution by proxy - it is illegal. Now - when the government, the DOJ, and the FBI are all corrupt who do you think will actually arrest them and hold them responsible? Even if someone does, the courts are corrupt in DC so it will never go anywhere.
That's entirely possible. The feds infiltrated J6 and probably some of the individual groups as well. The point is - even if the feds infiltrated the Oath Keepers that does not mean the Oath Keepers are bad. It means the feds are bad. The feds like Ray Epps pretended to be MAGA patriots also, but that doesn't mean MAGA patriots are bad.
To be frank, I haven't seen all of the posts, so not sure if there has been a "government" official that was instructing Twatland to censor, but on some other message boards I read, the lefts big talking points are: so what, who cares, Biden wasn't President and the government itself wasn't censoring, it was just. a political party, big nothing burger, blah, blah, blah. So I imagine that will be what the MSM runs with in the coming days. This country needs the Rs in Congress to stand up and do something, and for the American people to gather and sue those bastards in a class-action suit as James Woods suggested.
makes sense, if twitter did it by itself woud be a individual decision, from a singular corporation
but thanks to the paper trail, there is evidence good enough to be called proof, that there was collusion between the state and the corporation to silence speech.
creating thus, a clear and direct violaton of the first amendment.
but hold on, isn't twitter global?
they did the same all over the world, correct me if i am wrong but isn't that an international violation of a sort?
I didn't see anything showing anyone else outside of the Biden campaign mentioned. I'm sure they will find someone in the government like a congressman for instance, but the Biden campaign was not government (or the state as you said). If they colluded after he was POTUS at that point he is government and should be prosecuted.
I don't like it at all, but that will 100% be their argument, and it is legit.
Conspiracy to do what? Ask Twitter to censor? They were civilians asking a company to do something that they wanted. That's not illegal for them to do - until they become government. Twitter didn't break the law either (in this case). What they did do is risk losing their 230 protection. That is actually on the agenda for the Republicans when they take over the House.
Don't confuse something that is clearly "wrong" for being illegal. I could ask a cop to arrest Hillary Clinton, and it would be wrong but not illegal. Biden could do the same and it could very well be illegal because it would be misuse of his office (unless there was a legal reason to do so).
If Biden calls his buds in congress to censor that would be conspiracy. Whether or not he was in government at the time you don't think that his colleges were
I'm seeing a common theme continuing from PDJT'S first term. Remember we talked about how part of the plan seemed to be teaching our population about how our government including the Constitution works. I mean since our education system is not an education system the white hats knew they had to teach us about it. This seems to be part of what Elon is doing.
Smells like treason.
They swore an oath...
Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but it is still wrong.
This is what people don't get. It's not always about what is legal or not. It's also about what's right or wrong.
But "wrong" doesn't always lead to a broken law. "Wrong" in this case, did however lead to a billionaire buying the crime scene to expose it.
Democrat? It stopped being democrat a long time ago, call it what it is, a progressive, that means commie subvertion machine. Is not just the states, they are going after everone!!!!
What is the difference between an outside entity asking for information to be removed and the CEO of the company asking for information to be removed? It is a violation, this comment is only plausible under the section 230 protections granted to internet companies allowing them to not be considered publishers but instead as hosts for content. So the government allowed these internet companies to remove what they wanted when they wanted for whatever reason that they wanted making it the perfect vessel to "legally" (it isn't) sensor speech online. The whole thing is unconstitutional and elon trying to use that stinks to high heaven.
The government cannot violate the Constitution by proxy.
Bingo, it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution. This is going to get some kind of fun I feel. So many layers of corruption. As if they were not already in hot water for violating their oaths.
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
Can I as a person censor your speech or hinder your speech?
14th about to come in clutch!
Strawman argument. We are talking about a company not an individual. And yeah - if you write a book and I want to put something in it you can say no and I have no right to put my speech in that book. It is your book. Same with Twitter - it is their company and their rules.
Just like here - mods can ban you or remove comments.
It isn't a straw man, corporations get to enjoy benefits of person hood under the law until the law says that they can not do what they want. If I do not hold the right to hinder your free speech then you do not have the right to hinder mine, arbitrary rules to "maintain order" are not law and are not enforceable under the law and have been illegally upheld as law by corporations with the aid of the government for far too long.
Mods can remove what they want, that isn't the argument though. It isn't legal to remove unless it infringes on other peoples rights. The hope is that no one would ever argue it correctly in court but it is not legal just because they say it is and the 14th amendment dun fucked em good!
they are benefiting from protections. your book is not.
A) The people should not be forced to pay for subsidies through tax benefits and grants, which Twitter has received, because then the government has stuck their fingers into it
B) The government CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BY PROXY.
Did Twitter censor the laptop story based on requests of the Biden team prior to Jan 20 swearing in? If requests were made before that date then censorship was done under request of a citizen and not "the government". We might be looking at a "shady but not illegal" situation.
This is true - both parts. We also shouldn't have to pay for Ukraine, or abortions overseas, or other foreign aid, or a million other things.
And yeah - I 100% agree with (B) as well. The govt is breaking the law (on almost everything they do). That is actually what I said above: Government can't force corporations to censor speech. Just like they got slapped down for trying to push vax mandates by getting OSHA to go after companies. Government is usually corrupt, but this one makes normal governments blush.
if they are protected then why block free speech.
It is not possible for corporations to violate the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about what corporations (or any non-government entity) may or may not do.
What is important is that the government can't USE corporations to violate the constitution, but it must also ALLOW corporations to do the same things on their own.
Excuse me? Corporations are not people and are beholden to the government and all Laws that the government is beholden to. Unless you want to argue that Twitter is a person in which case they would also be beholden to not infringing on the rights of others. I do not see a win for this. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!
It was laid out by him spamming that the Truth will regain confidence. Baiting. I hate it. Good things are happening, not gonna lie but I have seen some shady business so gotta stay on the toes.
The difference is not if it's an outside entity or internal. The difference is if the outside entity is the government. The reason for this difference is that the government is legally bound by different rules, particularly the first amendment.
Morally speaking there isn't much difference.
Regarding section 230, I agree. If these companies censor information to this degree, then they should be considered publishers and thus held legally responsible for any illegal content that gets posted on their site.
The way section 230 should work is the website has no terms of service as to what can and cannot be posted. You can post whatever you want. And the onus to remove illegal content goes on law enforcement. Why would it be the platform's job to remove illegal content? That's law enforcement's job. And law enforcement has actual oversight, even if that oversight may have some flaws, and are bound by the constitution. Some oversight is better than the current zero oversight that the companies themselves have.
I like your suggestion for 230. It bothered me early on to have to report it to the host who would have to already know about it, I got blocked for stupid opinions within moments of posting them. You can then try the FBI but their site is not user friendly and didn't allow for an easy way to alert them anonymously, local law didn't care about local things so I wasn't going to bother with them...
The thing is that I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor and the consensus seems to be that Corporations can and that simply cannot be true. That would mean that Corporations are allowed to do as they please unchecked by anything and that would mean that the government isn't upholding it's obligation to the people and that makes me big sad....
I disagree. The constitution, legally speaking, only applies to the government(s). It does not apply directly to you. There may be other laws you are violating, which are applicable to you, if you do something that happens to violate your neighbor's constitutional rights, but the violation is not because you're violating their constitutional rights. There are instances where you can violate their constitutional rights just the same as a corporation can.
For example, if your neighbor enters your property and says something derogatory about your girlfriend. You are legally allowed to kick them out of your property and, if they don't oblige, have them trespassed. If the government did the same thing (i.e. if a person walked into a public park and said something derogatory about the government, so the government had them trespassed), that would be illegal.
The same goes for Twitter.
It's not about violating the Constitution. It's about them doing something that is morally wrong, and should be illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be directly illegal, as that is potentially a violation of the company's rights to do what they want with their property. This is why the section 230 solution is so great. It doesn't make censorship directly illegal, but it means the company is liable for illegal content posted if they choose to censor.
And it makes sense in the spirit of the law. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that if something is posted on Facebook without a fact check banner or being removed, and is a particularly "spicy" take where you'd expect Facebook to have fact checked or removed it, that Facebook had tried to fact check it and came up empty, so it stayed. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that a spicy post on Facebook that doesn't have a fact check banner is verified by Facebook. That's how prominently they censor. So they should be held partially liable if something is, for example, libelous.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
In the spirit of the law a corporation is a person and they do not get any more rights than I do as a person. I am not allowed to silence my neighbor.... If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse. That person might be removed for a time even. Why is that any different for a corporation? Why is it everywhere I look everyone but the common man has all these extra privileges that I am not afforded? The Law was written for the common man, so that he might stay himself in a world that was all about incorporation and conformity.
Yes.
Did you not read my comment?
You have legal recourse if what they did was illegal, not because it violated your constitutional rights. Read my example above for an instance of when something may be legal, but still a violation of constitutional rights, but is still allowed.
Yeah but what many also do not get is that is a gray area. I wish it were not and it should not be. We know what is right and wrong, but being ruled by luciferians everything is inverted so we can't go by " right or wrong ", so the Constitution and Laws must be our guide. At least until we reinstall common sense morally conscious humans who understand true definitions of words.
The bastards who rule over us cannot even accurately define a man and woman.
Grey area? How is that a grey area, they took commands from governamental offices, to silence opposition. I'm not very familiar to your laws, that's true, but there aren't any law that clarify that receiving direct orders from the government, make you an arm of the government or a governamental asset? Something along those lines?.
I agree with you and OP above me. However ANYTHING other than something written in law is " gray area ", because those who rule over us are wordsmiths and psychos. They change the very definition of words.
Not the best example but here is 1. We know pedophilia is 100% wrong, but yet laws are being made to make it legal, protect pedos, and vilify those who fight against it.
OP said this " This is what people don't get. It's not always about what is legal or not. It's also about what's right or wrong. "
I wish and want it to be that simple, but I pay consequences if I start smoking traitors and pedos, even tho I would be right with moral high ground, cuz murder is illegal and all. That is what I meant about " gray area ".
smokin' convicted pedos, gets mad rep in the prision though.
but seriosly, i do know that is how it is, whether we like it or not.
and on a note, i saw a great podcast on the new discourses about paraphilia.
maybe we should call them what those are, what we are really facing, Khazarians ashkenazi false jews
the jinos, in united states slang.
those are a worldwide satanic cult.
Which government office would that be?
The DNC? The Biden campaign?
Those are not government offices.
I mean to say, that they are taking actual cues from people in political positions, that means any and all governamental bodies, all it takes is to be a progressive, and boom, you can silence oposition, silence scandals for your side, demonize your oposition, or the regular joe and jane on the street, and the negative is not the only thing you can do, you can push fake news, you can lie about the oposition, that is an actual fucking art, you can make it that any kind of mistake committed by your oposition even if justifiable. And the government tercerized that to the private sector, via the corporations.
Yeah, well, you’re dealing with people that believe in moral relativity. One man’s satanic CP party is another man’s normal Friday evening.
This is Bigly
Like a friend of mine likes to say: BOOM!
nothing will happen, even though Elon is a hero.
Best tweet so far.
So if it's the "Biden team" that asked for the info to be removed, this would be considered a political candidate colluding with a private company. Does anyone know the legality here, compared to colluding with the government itself? Kayleigh, part of the Trump admin at the time, got her account taken down, so this could potentially add to the severity of it?
Honestly I'm not certain that Twitter could even be charged with election interference for deciding to censor something from their own platform.
The Biden team probably could be prosecuted for something but I'm not sure what. Remember they weren't in the government when they were campaigning. Now if they can connect someone that was actually government at the time, like a judge, a congressman or DOJ/State official then they would be in serious trouble.
Didn't someone just get convicted (first time ever) of Seditious Conspiracy?
Precedent?
I think it was an Oath Keeper. Checking...
AP Article
oath keepers wear mask. i dont trust them do you?
Uh - yeah. WTF are you talking about - wearing masks? I know some wore masks on J6 because they expected tear gas. Aside from that, if they wear masks in public it is likely because the corrupt DOJ is charging them with sedition.
Oath Keepers are patriots that keep their police/military oaths and promise to disobey any orders that go against the constitution.
Are you sure you are in the right place?
They seem like they were there to pick a fight. Thats their objective but why mix innocent people in it and wear mask like antifa.
Was still a first amendment violation due to taking government cash and subsidies and we need to stand strong on that list.
No its not. Here is the 1st Amendment again - notice it only mentions Congress (which I believe was interpreted by SCOTUS as Government):
Private businesses/Corporations can't violate the first because they are not government.
We pay for it through the government indirectly. And once more, for the retards in the back: The government cannot violate the Constitution by proxy.
Period. Fin. Literally no acceptable argument. Donezo.
Taking money from the govt doesn't make a company government. If it did, farmers, energy companies, airlines, rail, banks, and even people that got tax breaks due to natural disasters would be government. This is not that hard to understand.
And again - you are right govt can't violate the constitution by proxy. In this case the stuff that was published today seemed to be dealing with the Biden campaign. Campaign - i.e. they were not yet government. If however someone that was actually government was also involved then they broke the law and should be hammered. I believe someone in the government did help the campaign, but the campaign was not government and not subject to the 1st amendment.
Enough with the retard stuff - that was a dick comment.
True, but I have had enough of libertarians standing by while it got to this point.
But the fact remains that the government cannot provide incentive or demand in any fashion -- any fashion -- for a company to censor on their behalf. That would fall under the "abridging" line.
Apologies, but it's a frustrating subject in general.
No worries. I think we are both actually saying the same thing.
And it's not just the libertarians - RINOs sold us out and they are by far harder to deal with and get rid of (Lisa Murkowski for example). Libertarians are often closer to conservatives or constitutionalists than RINOs are. I agree with a little bit of what libertarians believe (as long as it doesn't conflict with my conservative ideals), and in many cases I'd rather have a libertarian in congress over a RINO. We would probably have less spending and regulation. RINOs always bend over at the first sign of conflict, or they stab you in the back (like McConnell and McCarthy).
Term limits, and a completely new House and Senate with a ban for 1 or 2 terms on everyone currently serving would fix a lot of problems.
I have some serious questions from you. you say government cant violate by proxy then what about j6. They let people in the front door, then arrested them. Please tell me what you think about the oath keepers.
I already said the Oath Keepers are patriots. They are made up of ex cops and ex military. If you think it is weird that they wore masks to J6 I don't know what to say to you. I'm pretty sure ex cops and ex military would properly prepare to go to something that they knew would devolve into violence. It was likely not their first time wearing gas masks. I know I had to do the gas mask training overseas when I was military. I carried my chem gear with me in my car for 2 years while I was stationed in Europe, and we had plenty of chemical exercises. If you think that because the govt went after and arrested oath keepers I'd suggest you remember the govt also went after soccer moms going to school board meetings, and classified them as domestic terrorists.
As for the government violating the Constitution by proxy - it is illegal. Now - when the government, the DOJ, and the FBI are all corrupt who do you think will actually arrest them and hold them responsible? Even if someone does, the courts are corrupt in DC so it will never go anywhere.
I ma not picking a fight with you. I worry that some of them were under cover feds at j6. I understand what they are about.
That's entirely possible. The feds infiltrated J6 and probably some of the individual groups as well. The point is - even if the feds infiltrated the Oath Keepers that does not mean the Oath Keepers are bad. It means the feds are bad. The feds like Ray Epps pretended to be MAGA patriots also, but that doesn't mean MAGA patriots are bad.
To be frank, I haven't seen all of the posts, so not sure if there has been a "government" official that was instructing Twatland to censor, but on some other message boards I read, the lefts big talking points are: so what, who cares, Biden wasn't President and the government itself wasn't censoring, it was just. a political party, big nothing burger, blah, blah, blah. So I imagine that will be what the MSM runs with in the coming days. This country needs the Rs in Congress to stand up and do something, and for the American people to gather and sue those bastards in a class-action suit as James Woods suggested.
It's the whole idea of the ESG government colluding with business ?
u/#catdance
Monopolies are both wrong and illegal, and the Tech Tyrants have been running monopolies.
Why did he dress up as Baphomet again?
Shit. Every time I want to praise Musk, I hesitate. It think, he has all these like, Government contracts.
I think like, I fell like everything I see is fake. Not to believe my lying eyes.
makes sense, if twitter did it by itself woud be a individual decision, from a singular corporation but thanks to the paper trail, there is evidence good enough to be called proof, that there was collusion between the state and the corporation to silence speech. creating thus, a clear and direct violaton of the first amendment. but hold on, isn't twitter global? they did the same all over the world, correct me if i am wrong but isn't that an international violation of a sort?
I didn't see anything showing anyone else outside of the Biden campaign mentioned. I'm sure they will find someone in the government like a congressman for instance, but the Biden campaign was not government (or the state as you said). If they colluded after he was POTUS at that point he is government and should be prosecuted.
I don't like it at all, but that will 100% be their argument, and it is legit.
They can get him on conspiracy.
Conspiracy to do what? Ask Twitter to censor? They were civilians asking a company to do something that they wanted. That's not illegal for them to do - until they become government. Twitter didn't break the law either (in this case). What they did do is risk losing their 230 protection. That is actually on the agenda for the Republicans when they take over the House.
Don't confuse something that is clearly "wrong" for being illegal. I could ask a cop to arrest Hillary Clinton, and it would be wrong but not illegal. Biden could do the same and it could very well be illegal because it would be misuse of his office (unless there was a legal reason to do so).
If Biden calls his buds in congress to censor that would be conspiracy. Whether or not he was in government at the time you don't think that his colleges were
In the tweets Taibbi says that Trump who was sitting president at the time also reached out to have tweets removed.
I didn't see that yesterday but it is hard to follow when people are commenting all through your thread. What a horrible format.
If that is true that is not good for Trump.
Acting by itself to suppress speech is still wrong, but it is not a violation on the constitution.
We should hold twitter accountable for that alone.
I make a motion that this be stickied.
Can the media ignore this and get away with it as they always have?
For the past 100 years I would say yes. Something tells me it will be a devastating mistake if they try to play the same card with this story.
indeed!
I'm seeing a common theme continuing from PDJT'S first term. Remember we talked about how part of the plan seemed to be teaching our population about how our government including the Constitution works. I mean since our education system is not an education system the white hats knew they had to teach us about it. This seems to be part of what Elon is doing.
Well...he's not wrong!