Jump to content
TroyinEwa/Perv

Usa Thread

Recommended Posts

Classic deflection...lol. No response if the Capital building invasion was wrong or right. Just "It may be wrong to ban Trump on twitter'. Which is mainly a tacit approval of the Capital building mob by another means. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

The question begs. Under what circumstances or type of speech should a president be banned or none at all. 

Just my view, maybe I'm a bit reactionary but maybe....just maybe...lives lost because of tweets is a bit too far. Again, maybe a bit reactionary for some. 

IMHO, social media should be subject to the same laws as Paper and TV and Radio which have had centuries of lawmaking to bring them into line. We have the laws.

7 hours ago, My Penis is hungry said:

I think if he is banned, far worse posters exist who should be banned but aren't

What he said caused a disaster, but also removed fr3edom of speech

It also destroyed possible Facebook alternatives, which we need

Yes - again - social media have free pass at the moment and control their content, purely on it's money making potential.

IMHO, social media should be subject to the same laws as Paper and TV and Radio which have had centuries of lawmaking to bring them into line. We have the laws.

7 hours ago, chocolat steve said:

If I go on twitter and say 'Storm the Capital building'. What would probably happen? 
If the President says 'Storm the Capital building" What do you think will happen? 

Say it in a newspaper, and then see what happens,  that's what should happen if said on social media.

IMHO, social media should be subject to the same laws as Paper and TV and Radio which have had centuries of lawmaking to bring them into line. We have the laws.

7 hours ago, Mekong said:

It does not remove freedom of speech, US First Amendment prohibits only Federal, State and Local Government from restricting free speech,  not non Government entities.

Interesting, there must be other laws/rules, that prevent someone (say Hitler) standing on the steps of the Capitol and exhorting the overthrow of the government. Prolly why Trump hid in the TV room.

---

Reporting I've seen, quoting a republican congressman, who was in the Whitehouse whilst the rioters were in the moment, of breaking down the doors and smashing windows at the Capitol: -  Trump was pacing the rooms and halls of the Whitehouse, delighted and happy at the actions of his Trumpanzees and confused, as to why none of his staff and arselickers were similarly rejoicing. He could not understand why every one was sombre and worried. Google it if you don't believe me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and this from alpha female Trumpanzee,  Fox News host Jeanine Pirro

 

694940094001_6003052891001_6003045270001

 

'You Did It': Fox News' Jeanine Pirro Blasts Pro-Trump Capitol Rioters, Says Don't Blame Antifa

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro didn't mince words in calling out pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, condemning those who have baselessly claimed that antifa was responsible for the violence.....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/you-did-it-fox-news-jeanine-pirro-blasts-pro-trump-capitol-rioters-says-dont-blame-antifa/ar-BB1cCQZm?ocid=BingNews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP Lawmakers Beg Biden, Pelosi Not to Impeach Trump in the 'Spirit of Healing'

A group of seven GOP lawmakers sent a letter to President-elect Joe Biden on Saturday begging him to formally request that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stop her efforts to impeach President Donald Trump over the attack on the U.S. Capitol...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-lawmakers-beg-biden-pelosi-not-to-impeach-trump-in-the-spirit-of-healing/ar-BB1cCapN?ocid=BingNews

Ken Buck of Colorado, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom McClintock of California, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Chip Roy of Texas, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.

--------

Opinion: You know, sometimes, when you're faced with, an out of control, screaming, nutter, with face paint, wearing a silly hat, you just have to punch 'em in the face.

pf.jpg.ade30428a884974c34e531b88661fafa.jpg

 

And this one, it's not a meme, he's not a very smart one, it's true, google it if you don't believe me.

here y'go: https://www.wmar2news.com/news/local-news/maryland-man-seen-wearing-work-badge-during-protests-at-u-s-capitol-fired-from-job

 

cb.jpg.af783ad79696e51817f98ab993377c86.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the 'tech giants controlling free speech' debate;

Parler loses Amazon hosting amid concerns over violent posts

Parler faced the prospect of going dark on Sunday after the Twitter alternative lost hosting services provided by Amazon , a move that followed decisions by Apple and Google to stop distributing the social network's mobile apps .

Parler CEO John Matze said Amazon would shut off the company's servers at midnight on Sunday in attempt to "remove free speech from the internet." Parler might be unavailable for as long as a week, he told users, because the company would need to rebuild its service...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/parler-loses-amazon-hosting-amid-concerns-over-violent-posts/ar-BB16ihN1?ocid=BingNews

____

Comment: On the other hand, If I was running a storage facility, and I found out that one of the units was being used for bomb making, I'd kick 'em out and call the police also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First amendment sets limit on free speech. It specifically gives an example like 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre'. The law was meant to stop the government from people criticizing it. That's the primary one. Of course there are others. Free speech has always been curbed when it causes physical harm or incites someone to cause physical harm and you know it. 

Free speech was never that you can say whatever. For example. Libraries can not have books on bombmaking. In a totally free speech environment that would be allowed. There is also the 'reasonable expectation' doctrine where you know your speech will likely incite someone to harm others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, My Penis is hungry said:

Mekong I refer to everyone freedom of speech.

But who sets the limits of freedom of speech? As CS points out free speech does not mean saying whatever you want.

Your Definition of Freedom of Speech is PTBM’s idea of what is allowed which may or may not vary from Mekong’s to idea. 
 

In the USA, Freedom of Speech is covered by the First Amendment, how can you talk about Freedom of Speech in the USA by ignoring the First Amendment and saying “Everyone Freedom of Speech”? Is there an “Everyone” clause that is only known by yourself and your New York Lawyer friends? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<<who sets the limits of freedom of speech? As CS points out free speech does not mean saying whatever you want.>>

 

Exactly, who sets the standard? Should it be big data or a standard or code. Should everyone be set at same level? Plenty of people post things far worse than Trump but aren't banned.

 

Big Data doesn't want to spend the $'s on monitoring, so they let people with small number of followers escape who post worst content

 

If an arsehole like Trump who has millions of follows and never said (but sure gave implied approval) is held to a different level of censorship just because he has millions of idiots following him.

 

i hate the guy, but I think censorship should be equal for everyone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...