Democrats okay with censoring free speech

[Into the Night]

go kill yourself you piece of shit stalker

Nah. I have no intention of dying for the likes of YOU, Creep Wannabe.

 

[domer76]

Seems the Left--well Democrats, one in the same now--are fine with censoring free speech or even ending it...

A Pew Research poll released July 20 found that 70% of Democrats think the government should restrict what appears on social media, a dramatic change from five years ago when a majority of Democrats supported a free marketplace of ideas.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...Y4YJVI&state=107a6068010e426abf68e214ef6da934

More Americans now say government should take steps to restrict false information online than in 2018
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...strict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/

Those Americans saying that are overwhelmingly Democrats on the Left.

Democrats desperate to censor anyone that disagrees with them
https://nypost.com/2022/11/01/democrats-desperate-to-censor-anyone-that-disagrees-with-them/

It isn't something particularly new, but it is a growing trend, one that should be disturbing to anyone who thinks free speech is a vital part of an open and free society...

Speech is already regulated. The question is when that speech goes from fairly harmless lies and bullshit, which is what you and your fellow rights do regularly on this forum, to truly dangerous, harmful, lethal speech.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Speech is already regulated. The question is when that speech goes from fairly harmless lies and bullshit, which is what you and your fellow rights do regularly on this forum, to truly dangerous, harmful, lethal speech.

Bullshit. This about the federal government telling social media, along with the companies themselves, being the arbiters of what can be said and what can't based largely on political beliefs. We know social media censored speech that didn't meet their Leftist criteria. "Disinformation" for them and the feds was anything--even true--that didn't fit the desired narrative. We know that for a fact.

What this poll shows is that the Left--and the Democrats today are the Left--wants and applauds censoring political speech and other speech they disagree with even when, and often because, that speech is completely true.

 

[domer76]

Bullshit. This about the federal government telling social media, along with the companies themselves, being the arbiters of what can be said and what can't based largely on political beliefs. We know social media censored speech that didn't meet their Leftist criteria. "Disinformation" for them and the feds was anything--even true--that didn't fit the desired narrative. We know that for a fact.

What this poll shows is that the Left--and the Democrats today are the Left--wants and applauds censoring political speech and other speech they disagree with even when, and often because, that speech is completely true.

Here’s a clue, dimwit. The government, in one form or another, has ALWAYS been the arbiter of what is acceptable speech or not.

Tards like you THRIVE on conspiracy bullshit, lies and disinformation. That’s why you wish it to continue. Ethically, you don’t give a fuck.

The rest of us, clearly the minority, have the ability and desire to sift through the lies and bullshit. For us, filtering info isn’t necessary, because we recognize feces when we see it. You? Not so much.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here’s a clue, dimwit. The government, in one form or another, has ALWAYS been the arbiter of what is acceptable speech or not.

Tards like you THRIVE on conspiracy bullshit, lies and disinformation. That’s why you wish it to continue. Ethically, you don’t give a fuck.

The rest of us, clearly the minority, have the ability and desire to sift through the lies and bullshit. For us, filtering info isn’t necessary, because we recognize feces when we see it. You? Not so much.

So, in your version, you are perfectly fine with the government quashing a politically based story on the basis of their own political positions and for no other reason? That's what the federal government did as many as 18,000 times in the last few years.

 

[domer76]

So, in your version, you are perfectly fine with the government quashing a politically based story on the basis of their own political positions and for no other reason? That's what the federal government did as many as 18,000 times in the last few years.

Here’s what the idiot from your cited article said:

“The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that all speech, especially speech we like the least, is protected.”

That is simply blatant ignorance or an outright lie. There are laws against certain types of speech and your hero just lost a civil case about it.

Defamation.

Quashing speech that puts , say, the first lady in a negative light, as was claimed (which is probably bullshit)? No, of course not.

But, the constant drumbeat of false claims about massive election fraud, you know, the Big Lie, IS harmful. To the nation and to individuals. Giuliani is about to pay BIG TIME for that speech.

Suggesting that people use horse dewormer or inject bleach or whatever else Trumpstains were offering? Some people are unable to filter through that shit.

18,000 times? I’ll have to look into that claim. The bullshit meter is ticking up on that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They do understand it, and the Enlightenment concepts behind it

experience and reality says differently

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Censoring bullshit that is harmful to the general public is just fine with me, thanks.

who determines what is and isn't harmful????? I state that with a point to be seen, but I believe you are not smart enough to get it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here’s a clue, dimwit. The government, in one form or another, has ALWAYS been the arbiter of what is acceptable speech or not.

Tards like you THRIVE on conspiracy bullshit, lies and disinformation. That’s why you wish it to continue. Ethically, you don’t give a fuck.

The rest of us, clearly the minority, have the ability and desire to sift through the lies and bullshit. For us, filtering info isn’t necessary, because we recognize feces when we see it. You? Not so much.

you are very confused. you're actually referring to democrats

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here’s what the idiot from your cited article said:

“The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that all speech, especially speech we like the least, is protected.”

That is simply blatant ignorance or an outright lie. There are laws against certain types of speech and your hero just lost a civil case about it.

Defamation.

Quashing speech that puts , say, the first lady in a negative light, as was claimed (which is probably bullshit)? No, of course not.

But, the constant drumbeat of false claims about massive election fraud, you know, the Big Lie, IS harmful. To the nation and to individuals. Giuliani is about to pay BIG TIME for that speech.

Suggesting that people use horse dewormer or inject bleach or whatever else Trumpstains were offering? Some people are unable to filter through that shit.

18,000 times? I’ll have to look into that claim. The bullshit meter is ticking up on that.

Here's an example cited in the judicial smackdown the Biden administration got in court on this:

In one example the judge cited, White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account meant to be Finnegan Biden, the president’s granddaughter and offspring of Hunter Biden.

“Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” Flaherty’s Feb. 6, 2021, request read. “Please remove this account immediately.” According to the ruling, the parody was zapped within 45 minutes of the request.

“This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,” Doughty wrote. “American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country … the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
https://nypost.com/2023/07/04/judge-restricts-biden-officials-from-colluding-with-big-tech/

So, you have a Biden administration official demanding, hell, ordering a social media platform to ban an account because it jokes (parodies) the president and administration. That's what this is about, and what Democrats and the Left are doing.

At least 50 top officials in the Biden administration are identified as actively working to censor and suppress free speech on social media platforms, according to the filings.
https://headlineusa.com/top-biden-r...sorship-collusion-w-big-tech-court-documents/

By the way, with 50 officials doing this, 18,000 posts works out to slightly less than one per day per official on average.

Here's an interesting spin from a pro-Biden source:

The article's title reads:

Judge limits Biden administration in working with social media companies

The first paragraph of the article reads:

A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about “protected speech,” a decision called “a blow to censorship” by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling.
(emphasis mine)
https://apnews.com/article/social-m...t-injunction-148c1cd43f88a0284d5a3c53fd333727

"Prohibiting" is to end, stop, do no more, versus "limits" meaning restricting but still allowing...

 

[Concart]

who determines what is and isn't harmful????? I state that with a point to be seen, but I believe you are not smart enough to get it.

Experts. Not you.

 

[Into the Night]

Here’s a clue, dimwit. The government, in one form or another, has ALWAYS been the arbiter of what is acceptable speech or not.

Unconstitutional.

Tards like you THRIVE on conspiracy bullshit, lies and disinformation.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. It (and you) continuously put out bullshit, lies, and disinformation. You are describing yourself again, Dumber.

That’s why you wish it to continue. Ethically, you don’t give a fuck.

You are describing yourself again, Dumber.

The rest of us, clearly the minority, have the ability and desire to sift through the lies and bullshit.

You make the lies and bullshit.

 

[Into the Night]

Here’s what the idiot from your cited article said:

“The Supreme Court has ruled again and again that all speech, especially speech we like the least, is protected.”

That is simply blatant ignorance or an outright lie.

See the 1st amendment, and see the constitutions of the various States, liar.

There are laws against certain types of speech and your hero just lost a civil case about it.

Civil cases are not criminal cases, idiot.

Defamation.

None.

Quashing speech that puts , say, the first lady in a negative light, as was claimed (which is probably bullshit)? No, of course not.

Paradox. Irrational.

But, the constant drumbeat of false claims about massive election fraud, you know, the Big Lie, IS harmful.

You can't make the evidence of election fraud by Democrats just go away, Dumber. The Big Lie is trying to deny it.

To the nation and to individuals. Giuliani is about to pay BIG TIME for that speech.

Irrelevance fallacy. Giuliani can say what he wants.

Suggesting that people use horse dewormer or inject bleach or whatever else Trumpstains were offering? Some people are unable to filter through that shit.

DEMOCRATS made these suggestions, Dumber. That called word stuffing...a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Experts. Not you.

What 'experts'? Void argument fallacy.

 

[archives]

Rights are inherent. They are absolute.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, fortunately, beginning with Hobbs and Locke, and the Founding Fathers, the social contract negates your sophomoric understanding

 

[archives]

No, you cannot hide behind the document you despise.

Not hiding, stating fact, and you prove it

 

[archives]

experience and reality says differently

And so says the poster who learned his Constitution from NRA bullet points

 

[domer76]

Here's an example cited in the judicial smackdown the Biden administration got in court on this:

In one example the judge cited, White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty asked Twitter to remove a parody account meant to be Finnegan Biden, the president’s granddaughter and offspring of Hunter Biden.

“Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” Flaherty’s Feb. 6, 2021, request read. “Please remove this account immediately.” According to the ruling, the parody was zapped within 45 minutes of the request.

“This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,” Doughty wrote. “American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country … the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
https://nypost.com/2023/07/04/judge-restricts-biden-officials-from-colluding-with-big-tech/

So, you have a Biden administration official demanding, hell, ordering a social media platform to ban an account because it jokes (parodies) the president and administration. That's what this is about, and what Democrats and the Left are doing.

At least 50 top officials in the Biden administration are identified as actively working to censor and suppress free speech on social media platforms, according to the filings.
https://headlineusa.com/top-biden-r...sorship-collusion-w-big-tech-court-documents/

By the way, with 50 officials doing this, 18,000 posts works out to slightly less than one per day per official on average.

Here's an interesting spin from a pro-Biden source:

The article's title reads:

Judge limits Biden administration in working with social media companies

The first paragraph of the article reads:

A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about “protected speech,” a decision called “a blow to censorship” by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling.
(emphasis mine)
https://apnews.com/article/social-m...t-injunction-148c1cd43f88a0284d5a3c53fd333727

"Prohibiting" is to end, stop, do no more, versus "limits" meaning restricting but still allowing...

Protected free speech is one thing. As I said, no problem there.

But, there is a difference between conservative “ideas” versus outright disinformation and lies. I covered that, as did the judge in his ruling.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Experts. Not you.

yes, we all know you hate that i'm smarter than you are, however, who gets to determine who the experts are?

this is what i'm talking about, you seem to either willfully ignore a point you don't want to acknowledge, or you truly are naive and ignorant

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And so says the poster who learned his Constitution from NRA bullet points

seeing as how i've CONSTANTLY referred to the NRA as the 'Negotiate Rights Away' club, your statement is completely non sensical.

more so, I learned the Constitution by reading it and because I understand simple english, am able to understand it without having to have the entity that the Constitution restricts explain it to me.