You have no RIGHT to post on JPP, social media, or anywhere else that you did not cre

blackascoal said:
Listening to all the right-wing noise about being “censored “ from posting on social media platforms they did not create just gets dumber by the hour. No one has a right to post on any platform at any time. Posting is granted based on your adherence to terms of use, and anyone can be banned from posting for as long as the platform creators choose to ban you if you choose to ignore the terms that granted you access.

One would think this concept would be pretty simple and easy to understand, but it isn’t for people who cannot figure out how voting machines and elections work. They’d rather whine like babies and feign butt-hurt insult than simply adhere to the rules. They’d rather claim they have no other way to communicate unless platform owners give them access to users that they themselves did not gather. And they believe they have a right to say whatever they want to say under the guise of “freedom of speech” while they take no responsibility for the guidelines that the owners must follow.

Those making such claims are ignorant babies and should be ignored.
Click to expand...





I disagree to a degree...


twitter gets federal subsidies and tax breaks. given that they are recipients of corporate welfare and given the government also directly invests in twitter it should be treated as a public-private company meaning the 1st amendment should indeed apply to twitter.
 
anatta said:
dont waste my time. selective banning is acting like a publisher controlling content
Section 230 give protection from lawsuits because of that -yet the capricious banning remains
Click to expand...

Section 230 offers no protection from slander. Users canceled and locked by these idiot for posting 'riot inciting speech' have been slandered. They could conceivably sue these guys. Section 230 won't protect them.
Section 230 does not protect them from contract law violations, including applying their term of service unequally among users. Amazon walked into this one big time.

The Fake News media is trying to tell you that the Parler suit against Amazon is thrown out. It's not. It's still pending. The only thing that was thrown out was the injunction order request.
 
Primavera said:
Can you tell me how the likes of Ayotollah Khamenei are allowed on Twitter whilst Trump was cancelled?
Click to expand...

Simple. The terms of service of Twitter are applied with bias. Oh, lawsuits over this are possible. Section 230 doesn't protect them from this kind of lawsuit.
 
Walt said:
No, Section 230 has nothing to do with allowing, or disallowing banning. It is about who gets sued if someone posts something.

It is the US Constitution that allows capricious banning. It is called freedom of the press, and it allows the owner of a press (or a website) to publish (or not publish) whatever they want. They can do it for "capricious" reasons, or even just plain wrong reasons. The government does not have a say in what they publish, or do not publish.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does.

The first amendment does not prohibit the federal government from passing laws requiring reasonably equal treatment of web site users. It DOES prohibit the federal government from passing laws restricting speech.
Of course, the federal government is now the OWDC, and no longer recognizes the Constitution of the United States.
 
Into the Night
Verified User

This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.


Ahhhhhh feels good man.
 
Hoosier Daddy said:
I am currently in the middle of a 30 day ban from facebook because I called Ted Cruz a fake christian pig. That must mean I am a conservative, since according to fox and trump and the clowns who believe their shit, conservatives are the only ones ever banned.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I got a 24-hour FB ban a couple of months ago for telling a woman who stalked my profile, on a local news FB page site, to quit posting hateful comments on the only two things that FB makes you keep public... your profile pic and your cover photo. I called her a stalking whore... but SHE wasn't given a time-out for going to my profile to attack, rather than addressing my comments publicly.

I still get several of these personal profile comments, or PM messages from them, weekly whenever I post comments on either local or national news organization's FB sites. Reichwingers are childish, nasty, stupid people, many of them.
 
Walt said:
No, Section 230 has nothing to do with allowing, or disallowing banning. It is about who gets sued if someone posts something.

It is the US Constitution that allows capricious banning. It is called freedom of the press, and it allows the owner of a press (or a website) to publish (or not publish) whatever they want. They can do it for "capricious" reasons, or even just plain wrong reasons. The government does not have a say in what they publish, or do not publish.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most excellent summations of the First Amendment I've seen for a long time. Thank you.
 
You're at your friend's house at his invitation. You notice his wife and say, "Oh boy your wife sure got a nice ass! I'd love some of that!"

Right or wrong?
 
Into the Night said:
Well, you have no idea how voting machines work. You don't have a right to make this post either.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I most certainly know how voting machines work AND I have the privilege of posting here because I adhere to the rules. You on the other hand seem to believe that elections are determined by crowd size and bluster.
 
anatta said:
Section 230 allows this capricious banning -it has to stop -it's squashing political speech
Click to expand...

Perhaps if people displayed more intelligence they could avoid being banned. You don't like the lines that are drawn, but on the other hand we think
you are a reprehensible hate filled disgusting lying slimebag foreign sympathizing dissident paid traitor with no redeeming value and no information of any literary, artistic or scientific value whatsoever.


So...who exactly is being injured here, fuckstick??
 
anatta said:
Section 230 allows this capricious banning -it has to stop -it's squashing political speech
Click to expand...

It’s not suppressing our speech because we understand how elections work and we don’t follow a fucking baby who believes the only way he can lose is if the election is stolen .. while at the same time being one of the most hated men on planet earth. We believe in facts and science. You believe in trump .. period.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
This is one of the most excellent summations of the First Amendment I've seen for a long time. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Wrong. See 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.

Nothing in the 1st amendment prevents the federal government from passing laws to allow free speech, even requiring websites to allow free speech, or to require websites to allow free speech except for certain areas specified by State laws.

I realize you don't recognize the Constitution and neither does the OWDC, but I bring it up anyway since people are discussing it.
 
blackascoal said:
Listening to all the right-wing noise about being “censored “ from posting on social media platforms they did not create just gets dumber by the hour. No one has a right to post on any platform at any time. Posting is granted based on your adherence to terms of use, and anyone can be banned from posting for as long as the platform creators choose to ban you if you choose to ignore the terms that granted you access.

One would think this concept would be pretty simple and easy to understand, but it isn’t for people who cannot figure out how voting machines and elections work. They’d rather whine like babies and feign butt-hurt insult than simply adhere to the rules. They’d rather claim they have no other way to communicate unless platform owners give them access to users that they themselves did not gather. And they believe they have a right to say whatever they want to say under the guise of “freedom of speech” while they take no responsibility for the guidelines that the owners must follow.

Those making such claims are ignorant babies and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

It is hard for some of you to understand how this should work, but it is simple to grasp if you apply the rules that existed when Alexander Graham Bell started the phone system.

He could have regulated the content and conduct of the discussions but he believed that his invention was simply a device which enabled the 1st Amendment rights to be exercised. He did not have the right to use his machine to abridge the rights of the users to say whatever they wished.
 
blackascoal said:
Wrong again. I most certainly know how voting machines work
Click to expand...
No, you don't. That's obvious. You have already denied the capabilities of programmable counting machines such as that provided by Dominion or SmartMatic, their operating manuals (which are published), and demonstrated methods of hacking them.
blackascoal said:
AND I have the privilege of posting here because I adhere to the rules.
Click to expand...
You do not have the right to post here. JPP is privately owned.
blackascoal said:
You on the other hand seem to believe that elections are determined by crowd size and bluster.
Click to expand...
Nope. Elections are not election fraud either. Strawman fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top