T1B

So Zuck tells us what we've known all along.

You liberal douchebags that have been denying censorship exists in social media, MSM, and tech platforms - and probably still do - what say you?

Do you support censorship?

We know you support Harris, who by extension supports censorship.

Care to come clean?

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 6:05 pm Do you support censorship?

Great question.

Let's see what the orange cancer has to say on the subject.

Link.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 6:26 pm

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 6:05 pm Do you support censorship?

Great question.

Let's see what the orange cancer has to say on the subject.

Link.

Well, the only thing I could see in the link was some weird search link that includes Rolling Stone.

So that tells me all I need to know.

Might has well have directed me to Sports Illustrated for meal recipes.

Trump had 4 years and never subverted free speech.

Mark Zuckerberg, however, has ACTUALLY done it.

There was also something about the FBI "suggesting" they not cover Hunter's Laptop because it's Russian disinformation...which turned out to be incorrect...

He also stated he would not be contributing his Zuckerbucks and the numerous drop boxes because they "apparently" favored one party...

Coincidentally all this happened during the "MOST SECURE ELECTION IN HISTORY".........

Sven Golly, please go to your preferred source and read about the requirement for a governmental action to establish a First Amendment violation.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:54 pm Sven Golly, please go to your preferred source and read about the requirement for a governmental action to establish a First Amendment violation.

Keep deflecting.

So you agree that Zuck was right in choosing to censor info, or at the very least, in choosing what he deems "appropriate" for Americans to see? And you agree that Biden was right to ask him to do so??

Jesus get your head out of your ass.

I'm trying to gently edify you, but obviously you're too blinded by the cult to understand. I wish I had mvscal's linguistic ability now, but suffice it to say that you're being a dumbass.

Do you understand that this website can ban you, or restrict certain words, and there is no 1st A violation? If so, do you know why? It is because there is no government action.

Likewise, restrictions can be made on truth, X, Facebook, and other non-governmental forums.

On the other hand, when trump says that he wants the government to prohibit the burning of the American flag (a recognized form of constitutionally protected expression), that is a clear violation of the 1st A.

Further, to borrow a line from Steely Dan, it appears that you wouldn't even know a diamond if you held it in your hand. Have you ever tried to go to a website and it was subscription only, you couldn't access it? Well above I gave you the way around that. Get the web address for the protected website, enter it at https://www.archivebuttons.com/, and you'll be able to read it. You're welcome.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:54 pm Sven Golly, please go to your preferred source and read about the requirement for a governmental action to establish a First Amendment violation.

I'll have my people get in touch with Musk & have him contact you for instructions on how to proceed.....

Elon Musk brands Facebook revelations a 'first amendment violation' after Mark Zuckerberg admitted White House 'pressured' Meta to censor 'Covid misinformation' as well as 'demote' Hunter Biden laptop stories

X CEO Elon Musk has branded the revelations that the Biden administration put pressure on Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, to censor COVID misinformation as a 'First Amendment violation.' Elon Musk, a self-described free speech absolutist, said the episode 'sounds like a First Amendment violation', in a post to X, his social media platform.

The Seer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 10:34 pm Elon Musk, a self-described free speech absolutist, said the episode 'sounds like a First Amendment violation', in a post to X, his social media platform.

I laughed.

Anyone who doesn't pay Muskrat $8/mo. has their tweets/posts fall into a cavernous hole where hardly anyone else will see them.

"Free Speech" shouldn't cost $8/mo to be heard.....

Ellen and Zuck.

Do I actually GARA about what either of them says or thinks?
Get a fucking life.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is accusing Facebook of a 1A violation. Facebook, a private company, can do whatever it wants.

The 1A violation comes from the White House, Biden Administration, FBI, et. al.

The Federal Government cannot censure free speech, either directly by force, or indirectly through influence. Period. Full stop.

You mean like Trump has been threatening to do?

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:13 pm Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is accusing Facebook of a 1A violation. Facebook, a private company, can do whatever it wants.

The 1A violation comes from the White House, Biden Administration, FBI, et. al.

The Federal Government cannot censure free speech, either directly by force, or indirectly through influence. Period. Full stop.

Exactly - and as usual, Roux missed the point - or purposely overlooked it.

Upon further thought, I'll agree that Biden shouldn't have done that. Fight false info with the truth.

Now can you agree that trump was wrong when he said

“I wanna get a law passed […] You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. Gotta do it — you gotta do it,” trump said.
“They say, ‘Sir, that’s unconstitutional.’ We’ll make it constitutional.”

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:19 pm But Trump!

We get it, bro.

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 5:52 pm

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:19 pm But Trump!

We get it, bro.

We get that you refuse to hold your orange god accountable.

For anything.

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 5:51 pm Upon further thought, I'll agree that Biden shouldn't have done that. Fight false info with the truth.

Now can you agree that trump was wrong when he said

“I wanna get a law passed […] You burn an American flag, you go to jail for one year. Gotta do it — you gotta do it,” trump said.
“They say, ‘Sir, that’s unconstitutional.’ We’ll make it constitutional.”

I do not agree with Trump that it would be a good idea to amend the constitution to make it a crime to burn an American flag. But if that path was followed, at least enforcement of such a prohibition would be lawful. What Biden actually did was a clear violation of the constitution and therefore wrong. He didn't go to the trouble of seeking an amendment to the constitution that would provide him with the authority to silence people who disagreed with him. He just fucking did it notwithstanding the existing provisions that prohibited such action. Very, very wrong.

You guys realize this thread is about actual violations of free speech by a governmental entity, right?

Not some phantom possibility lurking in the dark recesses of permanently panicked TDS-addled brains. Actual, factual, historically validated violations of the 1st Amendment.

How about y'all Leftists sack the fuck up and admit your guy did a wrong thing? Thanks in advance. I'll hang up and take your apologies off air.

Roux wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 7:54 pm Sven Golly, please go to your preferred source and read about the requirement for a governmental action to establish a First Amendment violation.

The government wasn't really asking these platforms to censor speech, though.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 7:16 pm
I do not agree with Trump that it would be a good idea to amend the constitution to make it a crime to burn an American flag.

Yes exactly. Once again, Scrump shows why he is a fascist Nazi Socialist tyrant who threatens our very democracy to rightfully hold primaries in the great state of New York, 14th district.

Anyone who has issue with someone burning the American flag is likely a racist, xenophobic white supremacist Nazi Socialist who should be jailed for hate speech.

Mikey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:19 pm You mean like Trump has been threatening to do?

Trump threatens, because, well, he's Trump. He's a blowhard.

The dems on the other hand are a bit more clever. They wrap themselves in the 1A, but blatantly violate it.

I'll take the blowhard over the criminals.

As for Zuck. He sees the writing on the wall. He knows there is a very good chance Cheetolini gets the keys to DofJ and that he'll have some splainin' to do. He's just trying to get out in front of it.