Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

@Webb,

I never said you were Russian. I said you were dishonest. Only a right wing extremist would describe CNN as left wing.

You can shout and froth at the mouth as much as you want, but you’re not fooling anyone.

0 Replies

@Webb,

Webb wrote:

Quote:
I can see why you get on with Max, he’s another right winger

LOL! You're a "right winger" Max! Just like how I'm a "Russian"

Ignore the trolls Webb. We are doing fine without them.

1 Reply

@Webb,

1. Let's get this out of the way. Congress passes laws. They don't have to be balanced. Congress is allowed to pass different laws for restaurants than they do for newspapers. Congress has passed laws specifically to combat racism. They are allowed to do this (and in my opinion the civil rights bill was a very good thing).

2. There is a difference between regulating content and regulating people. A restaurant is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act from preventing African-Americans from being served.

A restaurant is allowed to prevent customers, including African- Americans from yelling out vulgar words. If someone wanted the Christian baker to make a cake in the shape of a penis... I bet he would be allowed to refuse content. He lost in court because the same sex couple wanted the same type of cake that other customers ordered.

There is a difference between refusing content and refusing to serve people based on their race.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You are right wing Max. You’re not an extremist like some on here but right wing all the same. You’re a real Tory.

Even you can’t be so obtuse as to believe the OP really is centrist, not when they’re parroting Trump.

Why the need to suck up to right wingers if you’re not right wing yourself?

0 Replies

@Webb,

Quote:

I agree with conservatives on some matters and progressives on others.

1. Making this general statement without providing examples, means absolutely nothing.

2. Will you or can you provide real significant examples to back up your statement?

0 Replies

@Webb,

Quote:

I do not see this kind of irrationality from the right, where they won't allow any sort of nuanced opinion whatsoever.

Your statement is a blatant lie.
You are showing yourself to have absolutely no credibility.

The following is just a small sample of why your statement has no credibility.
1. Fox News (Sean Hannity)
2. Fox News (Laura Ingraham)
3. Fox News (Tucker Carlson)
4. Radio host (Rush Limbaugh)
5. Glenn Beck
6. Alt-Right

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

hannity would have another Hannity an Combs type pf show and itd be another freefrall.

Published on Nov 24, 2008

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Congress passes laws. They don't have to be balanced.

Sometimes they aren't, but I don't think anyone purposely intends that who isn't the definition of a crooked politician. I can't imagine that the people who actually care intend for unfairness in as much as can be reasonably hoped for. I think there are still some people in government who actually care about this country and the people of it.

Quote:

Congress has passed laws specifically to combat racism.

Unfortunately racism is just a part of human nature. No law will ever erase it. It's sort of like passing laws against jealousy. There's a lot about humanity that is just plain bad.

Quote:

in my opinion the civil rights bill was a very good thing.

100% agree.

Quote:

There is a difference between regulating content and regulating people.... If someone wanted the Christian baker to make a cake in the shape of a penis... I bet he would be allowed to refuse content. He lost in court because the same sex couple wanted the same type of cake that other customers ordered.

First, to my knowledge after googling it just now, the case is still pending for him, or at least A case is still pending.

Second, you're actually further proving my point Max.

(Stay with me here) Let's say the person who wanted a normal shaped cake for a gay wedding is the same thing as Donald Trump saying on twitter that mail in ballots lead to voter fraud.

In both instances according to your logic the person involved wants the same service as everyone else.

~The gay couple feels they should be allowed to use the service to order a cake just like a straight couple can.

~Donald Trump feels he should be able to tweet his opinion just like how Taylor Swift or Nancy Pelosi are able to.

If we're following your logic it has to go one way or the other, it can't bend both ways.

Either the christian baker owns a private business and he gets to deny service to whatever people he chooses or he must meet some standard of fairness for everyone.

Either twitter is a private business that can exclude whomever they choose, or they must meet some sort of standard of fairness for everyone.

But honestly Max, I don't think you can rebut my prior example of the phone companies. I think it would be safe to say that for those private businesses to deny service based on political or ideological leanings would be nearly universally condemned.

And yet social media platforms reach much farther and allow people to communicate much more broadly than any cell phone service.

Social media has a farther reach than anything else currently available to humanity, and that's why there needs to be universal standards of accessibility.

People who are denied social media access in our current age are de-facto un-personed. They have less ability to manage their entire lives including their livelihoods.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Webb said:

Quote:

I agree with conservatives on some matters and progressives on others.

Real music said:

Quote:

1. Making this general statement without providing examples, means absolutely nothing.

2. Will you or can you provide real significant examples to back up your statement?

Sure! For example, I support same sex marriage and but I also reject feminism and nonsense like 'the wage gap', 'rape culture', and #metoo. I support some form of universal health care, but I also support free speech for all on social media and protecting the first amendment. I support student loan forgiveness and education reform, but I am also pro-life. I support reasonable gun control, but I also reject small children being allowed sex re-assignment procedures.

The question here really is why should I have to justify myself? I don't see conservatives demanding I pass a litmus test in order to legitimize myself.

It's this kind of behavior you're displaying that pushes people like me further to the right then we would normally lean, because the conservatives don't force me to conform to be something I'm not. They're more accepting.

You also see this phenomenon in things like 'Blexit' (the black exit from the democrat party), where black people who, for instance, believe in traditional family units instead of single mother households or don't appreciate Joe Biden telling them that "They're not black" unless they vote for him go conservative because they're sick and tired of being used.

Webb said:

Quote:

I do not see this kind of irrationality from the right, where they won't allow any sort of nuanced opinion whatsoever.

Real Music said:

Quote:

Your statement is a blatant lie.
You are showing yourself to have absolutely no credibility.

The following is just a small sample of why your statement has no credibility.
1. Fox News (Sean Hannity)
2. Fox News (Laura Ingraham)
3. Fox News (Tucker Carlson)
4. Radio host (Rush Limbaugh)
5. Glenn Beck
6. Alt-Right

You make no sense here whatsoever. Paid political pundits who work for right leaning media are not the same thing as regular conservative people on social media.

Also, what the heck do you mean by "Alt-Right"? What does that even mean? I'm not aware of any 'Alt-Right' attitudes or public figures who are accepted by the mainstream, and certainly not on social media.

0 Replies

@Webb,

You may or may not have noticed this, but the lords of censorship are panicking:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-05-30-tech-giants-fake-news-media-panic-over-trump-sec-230-censorship.html

Other than that, private property rights are not the supreme law of the land. There wouldn't be such a thing as eminent domain were that the case.

This is basically a civil rights issue. What conservatives have been experiencing is similar to what blacks experienced in the first half of the last century when stores and restaurants would refuse to sell food to them. That kind of thing is no longer legal in the one case and should not be legal in the other. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and Google are the public square in the modern world. Denying entry to one class of people based on ideology is not legitimate.

There were a number of examples of private property rights taking a back seat to compelling national interests during WW-2. The basic Willys Jeep was taken from its original creators and given to companies capable of producing enough of them to win the war. Harley Davidson was forced to produce BMW style motorcycles for couriers for the war effort, Packard was given the right to produce Rolls Royce engines for the P51 etc. etc. Civil rights are a compelling national interest.

1 Reply

@panther2020,

From your link:

"This means the lies of the corporate-controlled media — who absurdly claim that all vaccines are harmless, that GMOs are healthy, that 5G exposure is safe and that colloidal silver is toxic — will finally be challenged by the overwhelming weight of rational evidence that is being increasingly documented by independent media organizations like Natural News, Life Site News, The Epoch Times, The Highwire and so on."

1 Reply

@ekename,

Sounds like good news to me.

2 Replies

@panther2020,

0 Replies

@panther2020,

Quote:

Sounds like good news to me.

It would only sound that way to a turkey not a panther.

1 Reply

@ekename,

Quote:

Quote:
Sounds like good news to me.

It would only sound that way to a turkey not a panther.

In other words, you are happy with the present situation...

That's hard for me to picture. At present, a large segment of the US population, that is, those who get all their info from the MSM, literally have no way of even knowing that there are two sides to any of those stories and many others like them.

How is that a good thing?

0 Replies

@Webb,

You are confusing two separate issues; public accommodation has nothing to do with control of content. But let me start by asking this question. I want to clarify what position you are arguing.

Are you stating that any website should be legally obligated to allow anyone to post any content?

- Would you force a Christian website to publish posts praising Satan that they found very offensive?
- Would you force any website to publish pornographic posts?
- Would you force a Jewish website to publish Nazi propaganda?

You seem to be taking an extreme position that no one can prevent any content from appearing on their website.

I don't see how you can support this position. It seems obvious to me that anyone has the right to control the content that appears on their website.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are confusing two separate issues; public accommodation has nothing to do with control of content. But let me start by asking this question. I want to clarify what position you are arguing.

Are you stating that any website should be legally obligated to allow anyone to post any content?

- Would you force a Christian website to publish posts praising Satan that they found very offensive?
- Would you force any website to publish pornographic posts?
- Would you force a Jewish website to publish Nazi propaganda?

You seem to be taking an extreme position that no one can prevent any content from appearing on their website.

I don't see how you can support this position. It seems obvious to me that anyone has the right to control the content that appears on their website.

I think you're describing the exact reason the Trump administration is removing liability protections, i.e. so that lawsuits will become the weapons to police media content instead of personal liberty, which seems to have failed.

What is supposed to happen is that people are supposed to be able to have civil discussions that include diverse points of view WITHOUT those diverse points of view turning hostile and abusive.

Posting satanic messages on Christian websites or pornographic images, as you mention, would constitute hostile speech acts.

It is hard to define the difference between hostile and non-hostile speech acts, but if we could all just manage to have respectful discussion, it wouldn't escalate to the point of removing liability protections from media companies.

I can tell you as someone who tries to express non-leftist ideas among leftists, that people respond to me with hostility simply because they are intolerant of anything that dissents from their Democrat/Socialist ideological assumptions. So if I just say that police is generally a good institution regardless of what atrocities are committed by some people in uniform, they will automatically assume that I am supporting criminal police and treat me in a hostile way, even though I in no way defend criminality among police officers or among the general public.

0 Replies

In Schenck versus the United States, 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated the concept of a clear and present danger, when he wrote, in the majority decidions:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent.

Holmes used the example of "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

In Brandenberg versus Ohio, 1969, this was further refined by the statement that: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action." For the dull-witted here, free speech can only be limited if it clearly intends to incite criminality.

So what does that mean for the great braying jackass in the White House? First, in the Schenck decision, the Court speaks of the right the Congress has to prevent "substantive evil." Not the fat boy in the White House, but Congress. Second. the Congress has already determined that: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"--in Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. This is settled law, and a hissy fit on the part of Plump cannot change it. Basically, this means yet more waste of taxpayer dollars as that inept fool Barr attempts to defend an indefensible executive order. Finally, absolutely no case can be made that Twitter, in issuing a warning that Plump's bullshit about mail-in ballots being "substantially fraudulent" is false, restricts his first amendment rights. By their own terms of service, and in accordance with the Communication Decency Act, Twitter would have been well within their rights and the law to bar the fat clown from Twitter.

Any claims here about political censorship, or prejudice are just as bullshit as the fat boy's claims about the fraudulent nature of mail-in voting. Anyone who persists in peddling this crapola is no centrist, and is very likely a reactionary agent provocateur too dishonest to acknowledge the fact.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Basically, this means yet more waste of taxpayer dollars as that inept fool Barr attempts to defend an indefensible executive order. Finally, absolutely no case can be made that Twitter, in issuing a warning that Plump's bullshit about mail-in ballots being "substantially fraudulent" is false, restricts his first amendment rights. By their own terms of service, and in accordance with the Communication Decency Act, Twitter would have been well within their rights and the law to bar the fat clown from Twitter.

Why do you think protection from lawsuits is part of the first amendment? It says that "congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech," not that no can sue anyone else for what is done or said in or by media companies.

Now, you could make a case that the executive and judicial branches are enforcing the will of congress when they find in favor of plaintiffs that are effectively suing for abridgment of free speech; so by that logic no one could win a lawsuit against a media company without triggering first-amendment protections and ensuring that the decision would be reversed by the Supreme Court.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You are so bloody stupid, it's hardly worth the effort to attempt to educate you. But I'll take one, and only one shot at it: Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act.

0 Replies

Trump's executive orders and the implications for social media

Quick Links

My Account

able2know