The Constitution won’t save America- It has lost touch: open

[Into the Night]

Yet another idiot that things censorship actually works.

Bringing another thread out for open discussion.

The OP:

Just finished reading this article published on UnHerd today by N.S. Lyons, thought it was quite good. I'll say that I'm not Christian myself, but the author also mentions "some broader but less easily defined moral character", which I like. Quoting from its introduction and conclusion...

**
Last month, the US Supreme Court considered arguments in a landmark case on the legality of America’s metastasising censorship-industrial complex. The case, Murthy vs Missouri, rests on whether White House requests that Twitter and Facebook take down alleged Covid misinformation constituted illegal censorship that violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

Given the ample evidence of the Biden administration’s sweeping censorship efforts in recent years, many legal observers assumed the case was a done deal. And yet, during the hearing, it quickly became apparent that a majority of the court’s justices were sympathetic to a counter-argument that, actually, it’s the Government who’s the real victim in this case — because what “free speech” really means is that the Government has a right to tell Facebook that you need to shut up.

[snip]

John Adams once warned that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”, and that, should that national moral character disappear, the resulting political passions “would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net”. Adams was of course referring primarily to Christianity and its system of moral order, and Maistre would have very much agreed. In his view, the origin of a strong, stable and legitimate constitution could rest only in God and what we might call the popular fear of God: a sincere (even if subconscious) belief that to transgress the constitution (written or unwritten) was in a way to transgress divine law, an act liable to be punished accordingly. Ultimate authority then effectively rested above any man or document. Without this source of higher authority, the constitution would crumble and only the whims of petty tyrants would remain.

It sure seems that this is what we’re witnessing today. Whether or not we attribute the key role to Christian belief or to some broader but less easily defined national moral character, it seems clear to me that the Constitution is no longer alive with any such frightful sacred authority; it has been thoroughly profaned, and therefore opened to abuse. Nor is there today even a shared national understanding of its meaning and unwritten spirit. Whereas once few people would have dared try to blatantly twist its words to mean something that all would know implicitly they could not mean, our rulers no longer hesitate to do so — and often succeed. They succeed because that implicit constitution has been replaced.

I know that for Americans, who put so much faith in our Constitutional tradition, this is probably a particularly difficult and demoralising reality to accept. But accept it we must. Otherwise, we won’t be able to grasp the nature and extent of the challenge facing us. No amount of legalistic quibbling about the details and original meaning of the Constitution will rescue us from our present situation; nor could the nation’s highest court, even if it weren’t full of quislings. Even if the Supreme Court were to strongly reaffirm the principle of free speech, it would provide at most only a temporary reprieve — a ruling which the regime and its institutions would in all likelihood simply proceed to ignore, knowing they could get away with it.

No court has the power to define America’s true, unwritten constitution. If we want to change that constitution, and so restore any substance to the Constitution, then what will be called for is nothing less than a sustained and determined national cultural, intellectual, religious, and political counter-revolution sufficient to re-mould the very animating spirit of the state. It would, in other words, require an effort just as sweeping as the long revolution which dismantled and subordinated our original constitution in the first place.
**

Full article:
The Constitution won’t save America- It has lost touch with the nation's twisted soul | UnHerd

This is an odd one. He seems top be treating the Constitution like it was a living person, or that the Constitution is unwritten.
It is neither, of course.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't see this type of censorship as a bad thing.

Children younger than 14 who live in Florida are now prohibited from joining social media platforms, while those who are 14 or 15 will need a parent's consent to sign up. The restrictions come after Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law last month, which will fine companies up to $50,000 per violation.

This isn't censorship. Nothing in this bill is banning or limiting what social media platforms have on their web pages.

That said, the implementation of enforcing this bill is problematic. It is not up to the social media platforms to cater to every little requirement as this or enforce Florida law, nor is it even feasible for them to do so.

If DeSantis were to actually try to fine one of these companies, federal law will prevail here. These sites are protected by Title 47, $230. Congress DOES have this authority to implement this law, and Florida does NOT have any authority to ignore it. Indeed, the EFF will possibly wind up suing the State of Florida for it's overreach.

 

[Into the Night]

The Constitution is over, it was murder, and it is not coming back.

The Constitution is not over, Chicom. It's still there.

 

[Into the Night]

I admit I don't know when minors should be permitted to be on social media platforms. I recently saw a video talking about how it's bad for the very young to be on them (preschool), but as to when exactly they -should- be allowed, the jury's still out in my mind.

As to N.S. Lyons' article, they don't mention age restrictions on social media platforms at all. Instead, the focus is on whether the government should have the authority to cajole and even downright bully social media platforms into censorship speech it doesn't like. The Supreme Court apparently thinks this is the way to go, N.S. and I don't.

This isn't censorship, Sock.

It's a restriction on access to social media under a certain age. Nothing in this bill is censorship of any site.

 

[Into the Night]

It was... murder? Care to elaborate on what you mean?

I realize you don't understand or read the English language, Sock. You don't have to keep proving it.

 

[Into the Night]

This communist revolution which has taken control of America pretended that that the Constitution is still in effect even as they ignored it....running America from their committees from the shadows. It wont be long now till they admit that the Constitution is over.

The Constitution is not over, Chicom. There was no communist revolution. Sure, Biden and other Democrats don't recognize the Constitution of the United States nor any State constitution, but that is not everyone, and is not even a majority of everyone.

Biden and the Democrats want to start a war. If they do, they WILL lose.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah alright. I don't know about any communist revolution taking place in America, but perhaps we can agree in a Globalist one?

Oh this nonsense again...

There is no such thing, Sock.

Different nations are different nations, each with their own concerns, values, culture, etc.
There is no World Government.

 

[Into the Night]

Its America....which has Europe as our puppy dogs....almost the entire rest of the world hates us now.

Europe is not America's 'puppy dog'. Europe's problems are created by Europe and no one else.
You don't get to speak for everyone, Hawk. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, the U.S. is digging its own grave when it comes to its foreign policy right now.

And what 'grave' is that, Sock?

 

[Into the Night]

The tyrant threatening to burn the world down now that the world has had enough of our abuse and are done with us.

Biden can't find his way off stage and you think he's capable of burning the entire world??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[archives]

Yet another idiot that things censorship actually works.

Bringing another thread out for open discussion.

The OP:


This is an odd one. He seems top be treating the Constitution like it was a living person, or that the Constitution is unwritten.
It is neither, of course.

Tell us then, what exactly is the Constitution

 

[Into the Night]

It seems to me that Biden has enough sense to at least not do that. Guess we'll find out.

You think Biden has any sense, Sock???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The man can't even find his way off stage, shakes hands with people that aren't there, reads from a script (including punctuation) that someone has handed him, and suffers from drug withdrawal much of the time!

 

[Into the Night]

no.

the government telling companies what to do is still covered by the constitution.

it's defacto censorship from the government, by proxy.

the corporations are guilty of conspiracy to censor.

A response to the OP.

As usual, he thinks corporations are government even while he tries to explain they're not.

The federal government attempting to censor social media content (not the corporations themselves) is unconstitutional.
Corporations were bullied by the federal government to censor. They didn't do it on their own.

 

[Into the Night]

Censorship of the internet would be unnecessary
if people would only realize that it's a forum not restricted to qualified participants
and regarded it accordingly.

The whole purpose of the internet, it would seem, is highly ill-advised populism.
Discriminating people understand what it is, but in a democracy,
the opinion of idiots carries unfortunate weight.

As for our cherished Constitution,
it was a probably well-intentioned but very poorly executed document.
It represents the kind of harm done by people who are unaware of their limitations.

Anytime something serious is written, the writer's first responsibility
is to anticipate the possible mistakes of those trying to comprehend it.

In the end, censorship on the internet is not possible.
Anyone can create an alternative site or alternative content. Nothing can stop that.

 

[Into the Night]

Tell us then, what exactly is the Constitution

Go read it, Sock. I am not going to reproduce the entire Constitution here.

 

[evince]

Snore fest from a Chinese bot hole

 

[archives]

Go read it, Sock. I am not going to reproduce the entire Constitution here.

Figures, “pidgin” can not tell us what is the Constitution, “go read it” is about as close as one can come to admitting he don’t have a clue

NEXT

 

[Kamala Trump]

A response to the OP.

As usual, he thinks corporations are government even while he tries to explain they're not.

The federal government attempting to censor social media content (not the corporations themselves) is unconstitutional.
Corporations were bullied by the federal government to censor. They didn't do it on their own.

if they complied they committed conspiracy to censor.

it's also criminal



this is the libertarian in you denying fascism, and sucking corporate cock, like libertarians always do.

 

[Kamala Trump]

this whole thread is libertarian deep state fascist globalist illuminati dum dum spew.

 

[Kamala Trump]

if corporations are people, social medias are guilty of conspiracy to censor, a serious crime relating to the first amendment.