2020...

We need this cunt on the ballot.


Kamala Harris Rages at Trump: ‘Keep George Floyd’s Name Out of Your Mouth’
Sen. Kamala HarrisAP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty
HANNAH BLEAU5 Jun 202021,066
2:40
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) on Friday told President Donald Trump to “keep George Floyd’s name out of your mouth” after the president expressed hope that “George is looking down right now and saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country” in “terms of equality.”

“.@realDonaldTrump, keep George Floyd’s name out of your mouth until you can say Black Lives Matter,” Harris wrote on social media, sharing a clip of the president speaking in the White House’s Rose Garden.
 
espola said:
Twitter is a private company, not a government entity of any sort. They can set their own rules for what is carried on their platform. One facebook group I belong to has a long list of "don'ts" and the group manager is ruthless in deleting posts and kicking people out of the group. In another soccer forum, I was given a timeout after agreeing that a referee didn't have the balls to make a critical call in a WC game, and then after one of the moderators warned against personal attacks I repeated "He didn't have the balls."
Click to expand...
www.theamericanconservative.com

Social Media Platforms or Publishers? Rethinking Section 230

Regulations guaranteeing that the internet remains open and free shouldn't be dismissed as 'socialism.'
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com

Its obvious that twitter has taken advantage of its protections to infringe on the first amendment rights of its users.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
www.theamericanconservative.com

Social Media Platforms or Publishers? Rethinking Section 230

Regulations guaranteeing that the internet remains open and free shouldn't be dismissed as 'socialism.'
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com

Its obvious that twitter has taken advantage of its protections to infringe on the first amendment rights of its users.
Click to expand...

Funny.
Espola keeps explaining it to you and you keep failing to comprehend.
The whole Bill of Rights stuff is a little complicated for you, I guess.
It shouldn’t be...just read the words of the First Amendment.
 
messy said:
Funny.
Espola keeps explaining it to you and you keep failing to comprehend.
The whole Bill of Rights stuff is a little complicated for you, I guess.
It shouldn’t be...just read the words of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

The first 5 words are usually sufficient -- "Congress shall make no law..."
 
espola said:
The first 5 words are usually sufficient -- "Congress shall make no law..."
Click to expand...

Tried to add this, but my edit window timed out --

That prohibition on Congress has been expanded in the courts to include all law-making bodies at the state and federal levels. For example, the City of Oceanside could be in trouble if it unfairly censored critical comments from web pages it controls, but a private business (for example, a plumbing contractor) would be within its rights to censor critical comments from the business' web page.
 
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.

Lately states and municipalities have banned folks from exercising their right to assemble and practice their religion...
That & many people have hardly been peaceful in their assemblies...
 
Ricky Fandango said:
twitter has the absolute right to run their business as they please.
They just dont qualify for the protections offered in section 230.
Click to expand...
So when you mentioned twitter's First Amendment violation above, that's not what you meant?
You meant their "Section 230 protections?"
Thanks for clarifying, Nimrod.
 
I was speaking to an AT&T employee this morning about service and we got to discussing "going out" these days (my local coffee shop is open this morning...yay) and she mentioned that she's been out a few times in the last several weeks. She told me she's in Kansas City.
I said "that's right, Missouri opened weeks ago; seems to be going ok."
Then I remembered our incredibly stupid president referring to the state of Kansas when discussing KC a few weeks ago. So sad for our country.
 
messy said:
So when you mentioned twitter's First Amendment violation above, that's not what you meant?
You meant their "Section 230 protections?"
Thanks for clarifying, Nimrod.
Click to expand...
As a platform, twitter injects its views, and as a consequence, steps on the first amendment rights of its users.
It was afforded protections precisely because its a first amendment platform.
Follow the breadcrumbs back to my initial post where I mention "exemptions" twitter operates under.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
As a platform, twitter injects its views, and as a consequence, steps on the first amendment rights of its users.
It was afforded protections precisely because its a first amendment platform.
Follow the breadcrumbs back to my initial post where I mention "exemptions" twitter operates under.
Click to expand...
messy doesn't have time to pay attention...
He's too busy jumping to conclusions, flying off the handle and making an ass of himself...
 
Ricky Fandango said:
As a platform, twitter injects its views, and as a consequence, steps on the first amendment rights of its users.
It was afforded protections precisely because its a first amendment platform.
Follow the breadcrumbs back to my initial post where I mention "exemptions" twitter operates under.
Click to expand...

If you follow the breadcrumbs thoroughly, you will discover all the posts where you were shown to be incorrect.

Who told you this in the first place?
 
Ricky Fandango said:
As a platform, twitter injects its views, and as a consequence, steps on the first amendment rights of its users.
It was afforded protections precisely because its a first amendment platform.
Follow the breadcrumbs back to my initial post where I mention "exemptions" twitter operates under.
Click to expand...
You were buzzed out in your first sentence where you said two things, both wrong. Twitter hasn’t injected its views anywhere and the users’ first amendment rights are between them and the government, not them and Twitter.
A “first amendment platform.” Did you coin that phrase? I’ve never heard it. Do you know it in Latin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top