Trump Blasts Social Media ‘Censorship': ‘Discriminating Against Republican/Conservative Voices’

Right leaning outlets are out there. The issue is many people turn away from their platforms because they are outright hateful of pretty much every group out there. They have their own abusive forms of censorship (usually by drowning out alternative viewpoints or ganging up on non groupthinkers).

Now that I think about it, I could list some Republican/conservative-leaning platforms and most Republicans/conservatives will decry them because they are often poor representations of right-leaning people.

 

I'm not an NRA carrying member, so whatever affects them doesn't affect me. Equally, I'm not concerned with NRA.

 

And see, I disagree with that. As I invoked the slavery example earlier. If there were two sets of restrictions(government restrictions, and person restrictions.) then anything the government is prohibited from doing(IE: Slavery) isn't prohibited by the person.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Indeed, the restriction is placed on the US(Plural) and the singular States, but not on a person. Technically, very technically slavery could still be legal as long as it's not lawfully enforced by the liberal definition of two separate restrictions.

If I try to stop you from speaking, I'm violating your first amendment rights. Period. It doesn't matter that I'm an individual. The Liberal interpretation of two separate restrictions is extremely dangerous lol

These companies and the interface web are still legally bound to our very precious first amendment. Why else was HRC speaking against internet censorship in China? Because it was the position of the prior government that the internet should not be censored.

The Obama Administration has a stronger record on free speech than Liberals in the media/congress today, and that's saying something.

 

Other than Fox News, what "right-leaning" outlets are out there? Please don't mention Alex Jones, because that one just got censored by the left-wing media monopoly.

You either believe in free speech, or you don't; and it would appear to me that you don't.

And therein lies the problem. The problem of a left-wing media monopoly denying media access to those who don't share the "group-think" opinions of the left-wing media.

 

so you agree than that Trump should be forbidden from blocking anyone on his Twitter account?

 

He ought to just take some meds to make him stop acting like a whiny 2 yr old . Maybe his supporters would stop also.

 

Conservative commentators have been banned from the internet? You are way way way to emotional.
Pvt companies, banned some content due to rules violations.

 

Churches operate tax free even though many of them advocate for specific political policies and politicians.

I say any entity that is tax-free MUST abide by the 1st Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.

that means churches must allow Gay members and hold Gay weddings.

 

Nobody has made the claim "banned from the internet". If you're going to start following me around the forum with trollery I'll just report you to the moderators.

 

You advocate for a white supremacist Fascist state.

there, now everyone knows.

 

So you're post is a fabrication. All that has happened is some content removed for rules violations. Pretty emotional response from you saying banned. More accurately censored for violations of pvt companies policies.

 

So you're saying there aren't any conservatives who've been banned from certain platforms? You would've realized that the discussion has been about certain platforms, if you would've taken the time to read and get some context. But seeing as how you've been triggered you decided you'd drag your butt hurt into another thread.

 

I think in the end, this just hurts tech companies. They will end up taking some pretty big hits financially because a lot of people will just stop using their platforms. I love free speech and I like to see many and varied viewpoints to make intelligent decisions from. Stifling Conservatives in news or in media is not something that will end up being good for the country.

This sort of nonsense just gets people angry.

 

I am saying that.
By certain platforms, you are referring to private companies with rules and policies.
Like Political Forum. Who will ban people for content that violates the rules.

If they can't follow rules, why shouldn't content be removed? And banned, means they can't post anything on the platform.
Got a link where that has happened?

 

So now Fox News should be obligated run Holocaust-denial ads?

NAMBLA ads?

pro-Gay Marriage ads?

 

At least you seem to be acknowledging that these platforms are biased. But, FOX is broadcast t.v., it was never meant to be an interactive platform for the average person who has internet access, a keyboard, mic and camera. I mean, there's no doubt about what FOX is.

 

next you guys will say the NY Times has to post Holocaust-denial ads

 

the 13th amendment abolished slavery and made it illegal for one person to own another. one of the few instances where individuals, rather than the state, are constrained by the constitution. pretty much blows up your argument.

not sure how you feel the 14th amendment is relevant to the discussion. it is a restriction on government, not on individuals or groups of individuals (ie corporations, ngos, etc.).

only if you overturn the 13th amendment.

no. you can't violate my 1st amendment rights. only the state can do that. you are however violating the concept of free speech. and you would be a hypocrite if you then turned around and advocated free speech, like pantifa for example.

indeed. the 1st amendment is quite clear. "congress shall make no law..."

of course it does. you are allowed to shout me down in the public square all you want, and you are allowed to bounce me from your social media platform.

no idea what that means.

what part of "congress shall make no law" would even remotely suggest the above condition is true?

which has precisely nothing to do with the application of the law in the usa.

prior government? in china? where are we taking this meandering path?

the media, congress, and the obama administration are three distinct parties with distinct obligations, rights, and privileges. you cannot group them together.

i'm sorry but you're wrong. the 1st amendment restricts the state from punishing a citizen (or a member of the press) for expressing his opinion. period. and that is the sole extent of its authority. it does not even suggest an obligation on my part to give you a platform to express yourself.

 

Even if that particular example fails, other examples would be abound. In the separate restriction doctrine, an individual can violate another individual's rights, as long as its not outlawed. We all have to abide by the laws(which the constitution is one of them) regardless of what type of entity we are. Otherwise, we're hypocrites and proving the authoritarian regimes right.

 

And just how much does fox promote Alex Jones?

 

There is no question that these are privately owned.

There is almost no regulation at all on how any of these companies can gather, use, or sell that data.

The only real regulations are the terms and conditions of use that the companies themselves write.

As for your Fourth Amendment rights, you invaribly have singed them away dozens, if not hundreds of times. You probably did to use this site.

Since you probably don't surprise, you may want to pick up a copy of today's times and read this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/...lights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

 

but there is no law that says i am obliged to provide you with a platform to express yourself.

 

Whoever said anything about a 'platform'. The platform is planet earth, our expression comes from our voices and actions. An attempt to violate another person's actions would constitute a violation. That's the Libertarian viewpoint anyway.

 

Conservatives have sites like The Daily Caller, Drudge Report, Council of Conservative Citizens, Breitbart, and a lot more. You can do a search for "top 100 Conservative sites" and get their best ones.

They're not as popular as the left-wing sites because Conservative sites run off pretty much everyone. If you check out the comment sections on a few of these sites, you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

you are arguing that facebook, youtube, twitter, et al. removing conservative viewpoints is a 1st amendment violation are you not?