July 5, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Mike31mt said: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/04/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-00104656 No way, Im stunned the Democrats used covid as a propaganda tool....I never suspected this It's too bad this sham ruling from this cultist judge will be overturned. You poor saps had been taking so many L's lately, I'd hate to see you spike the football at the 50 yard line again.
July 5, 20233 yr 23 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: It's too bad this sham ruling from this cultist judge will be overturned. You poor saps had been taking so many L's lately, I'd hate to see you spike the football at the 50 yard line again. Yeah totally, it wasnt completely obvious that they were colluding with social media cites to suppress free speech, bury information that affected the entire planet, and then use it for their political advantage. None of that ever happened at all..... ...Not like anyone mentioned anything exactly like that at the time, and not like you just laughed it off and said "terms of service" like a bootlicker. None of this happened at all and this is just an activist judge.....one of the activist judges you dont like, at least.
July 5, 20233 yr Just now, Mike31mt said: Yeah totally, it wasnt completely obvious that they were colluding with social media cites to suppress free speech, bury information that affected the entire planet, and then use it for their political advantage. None of that ever happened at all..... ...Not like anyone mentioned anything exactly like that at the time, and not like you just laughed it off and said "terms of service" like a bootlicker. None of this happened at all and this is just an activist judge.....one of the activist judges you dont like, at least. Sure it did, sure it did, Mike.
July 5, 20233 yr Mike still thinks there is free speech on social media platforms with TOS that specifically tell you, you do not have free speech there.
July 5, 20233 yr 31 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Mike still thinks there is free speech on social media platforms with TOS that specifically tell you, you do not have free speech there. An unfortunate result of being raised in the dumbest state in the country. Poor fella never had a chance.
July 5, 20233 yr 35 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Mike still thinks there is free speech on social media platforms with TOS that specifically tell you, you do not have free speech there. Lol yeah what happens when the govt interferes with said free speech by colluding with the social media platforms? You guys are dedicated bootlickers, Ill give you that. Tell me about how covid came from a market again....
July 5, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Mike31mt said: Yeah totally, it wasnt completely obvious that they were colluding with social media cites to suppress free speech, bury information that affected the entire planet, and then use it for their political advantage. None of that ever happened at all..... ...Not like anyone mentioned anything exactly like that at the time, and not like you just laughed it off and said "terms of service" like a bootlicker. None of this happened at all and this is just an activist judge.....one of the activist judges you dont like, at least.
July 5, 20233 yr 32 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: Lol yeah what happens when the govt interferes with said free speech by colluding with the social media platforms? You guys are dedicated bootlickers, Ill give you that. Tell me about how covid came from a market again.... What free speech? You really are deranged. You have no right to free speech on any social media platform. Even truth social has speech rules. Deal with it buttercup.
July 5, 20233 yr Not sure which thread to post this: have they figured out whose bag of cocaine was at the White House? There’s a 95% chance it was Hunter’s right?
July 5, 20233 yr 4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Not sure which thread to post this: have they figured out whose bag of cocaine was at the White House? There’s a 95% chance it was Hunter’s right? Or somebody found one of Don Jr.'s stashes he forgot about?
July 5, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: Mike still thinks there is free speech on social media platforms with TOS that specifically tell you, you do not have free speech there. Fyi this case isn’t about whether or not a social media platform has the right to regulate speech on their sites. Of course they do. It’s their site. This case is about the federal government allegedly coordinating with those companies and pressuring them to regulate certain speech, which certainly could be a violation of the first amendment.
July 5, 20233 yr 2 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Or somebody found one of Don Jr.'s stashes he forgot about? Lolol no. They found this during a routine sweep of White House. They didn’t somehow not find it for 3 years of routine sweeps and then suddenly found it this time.
July 5, 20233 yr 7 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Uh guys...do you really think there aren't staffers in the West Wing using blow? Maybe, but the blow wasn't found in the West Wing. It was found in an area used by the public. Also when it was found Biden was in Camp David with Hunter. In addition, there have been guests at the Whitehouse who have admitted to using it in the past. So this incident isn't the first time. Snoop dog did a line in the bathroom and smoked a doobie, Willie Nelson also smoked a doobie on the roof and Gary McClain was there wired out of his mind. Surprised, Hunter Biden isn't getting blamed for it.
July 5, 20233 yr 41 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Fyi this case isn’t about whether or not a social media platform has the right to regulate speech on their sites. Of course they do. It’s their site. This case is about the federal government allegedly coordinating with those companies and pressuring them to regulate certain speech, which certainly could be a violation of the first amendment. There is no free speech on social media.
July 5, 20233 yr 48 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Fyi this case isn’t about whether or not a social media platform has the right to regulate speech on their sites. Of course they do. It’s their site. This case is about the federal government allegedly coordinating with those companies and pressuring them to regulate certain speech, which certainly could be a violation of the first amendment. And what First Amendment rights do the Russian Propagandists at the Troll Farm in Russia, have when they use the Social Media Platform to spread disinformation and lies. seems to me the Government, in order to protect the election, would reach out to the company to make sure they are aware of it and request they take action to prevent/remove it. I see no violation with that.
July 5, 20233 yr 35 minutes ago, Toastrel said: There is no free speech on social media. Once again..........A social media site deciding to regulate speech on their site = OK. a social media site acting as a defacto arm of the federal government to regulate speech at the behest of the federal government = NOT ok and a violation of the first amendment.
July 5, 20233 yr 3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Once again..........A social media site deciding to regulate speech on their site = OK. a social media site acting as a defacto arm of the federal government to regulate speech at the behest of the federal government = NOT ok and a violation of the first amendment. Nope, I have to disagree. I think the government was wrong, but free speech ON TWITTER is not right.
July 5, 20233 yr 49 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: And what First Amendment rights do the Russian Propagandists at the Troll Farm in Russia, have when they use the Social Media Platform to spread disinformation and lies. seems to me the Government, in order to protect the election, would reach out to the company to make sure they are aware of it and request they take action to prevent/remove it. I see no violation with that. And therein lies the gray area and potential problem. The federal government is prohibited from abridging freedom of speech (except for a few specific situations which have been laid out in the courts). The government isn't allowed to make a loophole to this by pressuring a private site to censor the speech they wish it to censor, and so that way they can say "oh, we weren't the ones censoring the speech. It was the private company doing it". That's what this case is ultimately going to come to. Did the site censor this speech on their own or were they pressured by the government to do so, and essentially acting as an arm of the government and censoring speech on the government's behalf. Previous cases have held that government officials have a right to speak and convince others of their opinions. But if it goes to the point of coercion where a failure to accede to the request could be interpreted that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory policy will follow, that's when the line has been crossed and it's now a violation of the first amendment.
July 5, 20233 yr 24 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Once again..........A social media site deciding to regulate speech on their site = OK. a social media site acting as a defacto arm of the federal government to regulate speech at the behest of the federal government = NOT ok and a violation of the first amendment. That's not even close to what happened.
July 5, 20233 yr 6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: That's not even close to what happened. I'm not saying they did. I'm just explaining to Toastrel that if that's what happened, then this would be a violation of the first amendment. He seems to think that it wouldn't be. I didn't read the ruling yet to see what evidence is listed. I'm sure the Biden Admin will appeal.
July 5, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Toastrel said: There is no free speech on social media. Not if the Democrats are in charge there isnt. Only state approved speech will be allowed. Just the way it should be, right? Delicious, delectable government boots
July 5, 20233 yr 29 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Nope, I have to disagree. I think the government was wrong, but free speech ON TWITTER is not right. You can just say this topic is too complex and you dont understand, it would save time.
July 5, 20233 yr 2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: I'm not saying they did. I'm just explaining to Toastrel that if that's what happened, then this would be a violation of the first amendment. He seems to think that it wouldn't be. I didn't read the ruling yet to see what evidence is listed. I'm sure the Biden Admin will appeal. It's just an injunction at this point, not even his final ruling. And the evidence, as always, is non-existent.
Create an account or sign in to comment