Criminalization of private speech coming to U.S.

Every right has to be balanced against other rights and interests. Which means we have to accept compromise.

You're preference seems to be denying others their rights.

 

Did you mis-read my post? What rights am I denying to others by disempowering the state to dictate to my fellow citizens what they may or may not express?

 

Really.
What comprise must women make accept to their right to an abortion?

 

Cant refute what was written? Attack the source instead!

 

Do you think it's more chilling than Facebook enlisting the Chinese Communist Party to fact check posts? Calling speech you don't agree with "hate speech" is not good and unAmerican, but it's not a National Security concern like China controlling a social media outlet ,,, yes the same social media outlet that spent $400M buying thugs to prevent oversight of the tabulation of votes.

 

Facebook is a private company. It can do what it wants.

 

As long as it registers as a foreign agent when it acts as a foreign agent.

 

Tilting at windmills...

 

Despite trump calling for this for four years, it's not going to happen. Trump will just be an inconvenient stain on history and does not have the pull for this.

 

Can you state specifically what actions Trump has undertaken to this end as you claim? Thank you.

 

I did. he called for people to be jailed for exercising their first amendment rights. Especially members of the press. Thankfully, everyone pointed and laughed at him for being a moron, when he said it. It was still a bit chilling, though.

 

You vaguely stated a claim, I am asking for specifics. I do not recall him calling for people to be jailed as you claim. Can you post a citation, please? Thank you.

 

Then go look it up. You don't have to take my word for it.

 

If you are going to make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up. The onus is on the party of the affirmative to substantiate their claims. Thank you.

 

I am. But I don't spoonfeed links to lazy people. I am happy to provide links for obscure information, or when someone is having a hard time finding something. But this is public knowledge and easily found with a google search. So, look it up or don't. I don't care either way. have a nice night!

 

Noted you cannot back up your claim. Ad hominem fallacy also noted. You cannot substantiate your argument so you launch personal attacks instead. Very weak. Trump never did anything you are accusing him of.

 

That's not a very good grasp of logic you have, there. Because i didn't spoonfeed this to you does not mean i cannot. But, just as much as i don't care if you believe me, i don't care if you believe if i can back it up or not. I will literally lose zero sleep.

But it is pretty funny watching post over and over instead of just googling ot for yourself. I guess i am holding the strings, in a way.

 

Second ad hominem fallacy. Not off to a very good start...

Your refusal to substantiate your claim is all I need to know about your facile "argument."

You made a specific claim. It is your responsibility to back it up. I asked for a simple citation of this "readily available public information" as you claim. It should take you about ten seconds to copy and paste a link. Our conversation is 18 minutes old and you have yet to provide any proof of your phony claim.

 

You clearly do not understand what the term "ad hominem" means, and you should stop using it until you do.

Again: look it up. Or don't. I don't care if you believe me. Like, at all.

 

I don't think that most people, including Trump, understand what protections Section 230 extends. Elimination would stop Twitter from being biased on whose speech gets banned/edited, but elimination would also make it impossible for competitors like Parler to get their foot in the door to try to get more users.

Which company can best afford to fend off several large libel/slander/discrimination suits: Twitter or Parler?

 

Third ad hominem fallacy. Hint: I am not the topic of this thread.

Noted you cannot substantiate your bogus claims.

 

Book bans in America....

 

Oh good grief! Are you really so afraid of everything left of Atila the Hun? Geebus, what a scary imagination. I bet you were good at telling ghost stories around the fires at summer camp. You could make a lucrative living writing horror novels.

 

So, blatant lies that can do actual damage to civil institutions or public health should be allowed? Wouldn't that fall into the category of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire? I thought that "harmful" was where the line was drawn, but I can't speak for other countries.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.
Disagree?
Provide a cite, and the copy paste the text where he says this.