C
Cathoholic
Guest
So it’s Putin’s (or "Moscow’s) fault ThinkingSapien.
Well. No wonder!
Well. No wonder!
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP Dad. Or is it actually a flawed report?
- Status
R
Rockoh22
Guest
I am saddened by the revelations that have come forward about Hunter Biden and substance abuse. This could happen to any family. In fact I have family members who have substance abuse. It is a disease. I pray for Hunter Biden that the Lord can give him strength to overcome.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cathoholic . . .
Now Jack comes out and agrees that THIS should be free to be posted saying . . .
Thank you Jack.
This was an obvious one.
As you Jack yourself have said . . . “Context, context, context.”
The pressure on social media to attempt to bury this story was immense.
There are way too many REAL alternative news outlets for them to bury this.
Even NSNBC is covering it not reporting much yet, except spinning it.
MSNBC will wait and see what the Biden talking points are to attempt to echo those or actually help Joe’s campaign to formulate such spin.
Anyway. Thanks again Jack.
.
ThinkingSapien . . . .
I rhetorically argued against this replying . . .
(One typo correction)
Now Jack comes out and agrees that THIS should be free to be posted saying . . .
.
Thank you Jack.
This was an obvious one.
As you Jack yourself have said . . . “Context, context, context.”
The pressure on social media to attempt to bury this story was immense.
There are way too many REAL alternative news outlets for them to bury this.
Even NSNBC is covering it not reporting much yet, except spinning it.
MSNBC will wait and see what the Biden talking points are to attempt to echo those or actually help Joe’s campaign to formulate such spin.
Anyway. Thanks again Jack.
.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Biden and/or campaign morphing from a “No!” to a “Could be?” on the issue. . . .
Biden probably wants to be elected before he tells voters.
Maybe he thinks the voters “don’t deserve to know” like he said about his Court-Packing plans.
.
Biden probably wants to be elected before he tells voters.
Maybe he thinks the voters “don’t deserve to know” like he said about his Court-Packing plans.
.
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Sadly, I think most people voting for Biden are doing so because he is not Trump. No one cares about Joe Biden (including the family members allowing him to run, IMHO). They should, and will if this fraud and Catholic-when-it-is-convenient gets elected, but his support f anti-Trump support.
I agree. Then make the protections contingent of honoring free speech rights. There is absolutely no reason, none at at, to block the NY Post story. It doesn’t incite violence, it isn’t illegal like child pornography.
R
Rockoh22
Guest
Most people that I know of that are voting for Biden, are not voting for Biden because he has the right agenda. They are voting for Biden because he is not Trump. This is what I have seen so far. I do not hear people talk about Biden agenda, I hear how they do not like Trump agenda, so they are voting for Biden.
Do not underestimate the Trump hatred. Hillary was not as popular as Biden, many people disliked Hillary and voted for Trump because Trump was not Hillary.
Do not underestimate the Trump hatred. Hillary was not as popular as Biden, many people disliked Hillary and voted for Trump because Trump was not Hillary.
R
RhodesianSon
Guest
Didn’t stop Twitter from sharing the story about Trumps tax returns when they got stolen and a story published by the NYT.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
The case was similar in 2016
Sadly, I think most people voting for Trump are doing so because he is not Clinton.
And I had a great number of parishioners state this to a tee.
There are restrictions on Free Speech Rights.
Here is the most VERY recent example.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Then we can have a look here for what is not protected:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
That won’t work.
In the USA, free speech rights are codified as a negative right; it is a constraint against the government. In the general case, non-government entities and individuals cannot violate the First Amendment without acting on behalf of the government. There are a few exceptions that don’t appear applicable today (ex: actions by a corporation in a corporate owned town). As of yet, neither of these companies has ever been found to violate the first Amendment. Most recently, a ruling was issued on PragerU v Google (2020 Feb) in which Prager alleged that Google violated their Free Speech rights and that Google was like a government entity. In the decision (and during the arguments) the judge noted that a company being a metaphor for a Government entity does not make them a government entity. In the decision, they found to have not violated Free Speech since they are not a government entity.
I mentioned some reasons earlier. As both entities have been previously accused of being a tool for the spread of election misinformation, they have motivations to hinder its spread. Especially now that the election is now underway.
That story is not alleged to come from a hack or unauthorized access to a computer system. Without such an allegation, why would it invoke the same policy?
X
Xystus
Guest
So Twitter only cares if a computer was involved in the unauthorized access? other non computer related unauthorized access is OK? I guess that is a policy, not a sensible one in my opinion but I guess Twitter can do what they want.RhodesianSon:
That story is not alleged to come from a hack or unauthorized access to a computer system. Without such an allegation, why would it invoke the same policy?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
They made a specific policy against it some time ago. Since there are other conditions that can also result in a tweet being removed, I do not think the “only cares if” part of your question would evaluate to true. The policy was referenced because it appears applicable here. Other policies that do not appear applicable are not mentioned.
Last edited:
Except that I’m not talking about free speech. I’m talking about a special government protection. FB can do whatever they want. They don’t need a special protection that media outlets do not enjoy. A carve out of this type can be contingent.
That is not a reason to limit speech. The entire Russia collusion hoax was never more than misinformation, so I’m not sure why the distinction.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Uhm, okay, lol.ThinkingSapien:
Except that I’m not talking about free speech.JonNC:
In the USA, free speech rights are codified as a negative right;
I’m not sure that it is special. I’ve got the same protections that sites that I manage. For media organizations that have a comments section for the users to respond to stories, the media organizations are not treated as the speakers of those comments.
Are you sure? Both entities promised Congress repeatedly that they would take steps to limit the spread of misinformation. A bit off-topic, but they’ve also made promises to other organizations that they would limit the spread of other types of speech. A boycott was involved in one of those negotiations for changing policy.
Last edited:
You can lol all you want, but I never said limit anyone’s free speech rights, even Zuckerberg’s.
So, it’s a straw man to argue otherwise.
Then there is zero reason to limit responses beyond what is already not covered speech.
FB owns the platform. They can ban whomever they wish. But let’s not pretend it is consistent with the American spirit of the free exchange of ideas. In fact, it is contrary to it.
Why would they do that when they spent the last four years intentionally doing it?
I’ll let others defend an n-American practice of censorship. I can’t and won’t.
As the quote goes: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. “.
Clearly FB and their defenders and beneficiaries disagree.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
The topic of this thread happens to be an internet hoax.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bidens-alleged-laptop-an-explainer/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bidens-alleged-laptop-an-explainer/
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Indeed.
That’s an odd response to share. I don’t think there had been any allegation that you said such. But okay.
They might do it because of the pressure for them to do so.
I don’t think there has ever been a time in USA in which one had a guaranteed right to use the private resources of another for expression. To obligate such might also go against some other principles and against some laws. They may be free to communicate on a hoax through other channels. But that is not to say that there is no potential liability for sharing that story.
I might be a bit more selective than Voltaire for the conditions under which I will risk death and the people for which I am willing to risk it. Close family members and loved ones are, in general, among the people for which I am more likely to take risks. But that’s another topic, as no violation of a right has been identified.
Your lol was a response to me saying, “ Except that I’m not talking about free speech.” so of course that was your implied accusation.
So they lied.
Another straw man. I never said they did. I said, “ But let’s not pretend it is consistent with the American spirit of the free exchange of ideas.”.
Straw man. No one suggested obligation.
FB. Is immune from such liability.
It probably wasn’t voltaire, but his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall. But you statement expresses the sad reality of Americans being willing to give up rights.
Correct, as we were speaking of the spirit of the free exchange of ideas, something FB clearly opposes.
- Status