User Controls
Anyone who thinks Twitter can infringe on your freedom of speech is retarded.
-
2021-02-18 at 4:12 PM UTCJust saying, you should read the first amendment.
-
2021-02-18 at 4:14 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 4:15 PM UTCTed Cruz is a major retardThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-02-18 at 4:17 PM UTCOP can't decide whether to deny it happens, or to gloat that it does.
That's the fundamental riddle facing modern leftists when confronted regarding their oppressive agenda.
Happily for them their cuck sense is strong, so when in doubt they nearly always choose to lie instead of brag. -
2021-02-18 at 4:19 PM UTCSomething can be a free speech issue without being a first amendment issue.
Just saying, freedom of speech is a principle and an ideal. The first amendment's defense of that freedom from the government is not the all encompassing definition of "freedom of speech". Your freedom of speech can be infringed upon by organizations other than congress. The extent to which corporations - especially those in the communications industry - should be expected to value freedom of speech as a principle is an important conversation.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-02-18 at 4:37 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 5:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Something can be a free speech issue without being a first amendment issue.
Just saying, freedom of speech is a principle and an ideal. The first amendment's defense of that freedom from the government is not the all encompassing definition of "freedom of speech". Your freedom of speech can be infringed upon by organizations other than congress. The extent to which corporations - especially those in the communications industry - should be expected to value freedom of speech as a principle is an important conversation.
This is retarded.
Freedom of speech is just the right to say what you want in public without interference from the government. That is the definition of free speech. Not Bob infringing your rights, not Sally, just the government.
Private property =/= public space.
Websites = private property.
It's really that simple. You don't have the right to go into someone's private property and say whatever the fuck you want. Certainly not when it is criminal or against their terms of service. The argument you are talking about with the communications industry is not a free speech issue. It is a labeling issue. The USA addressed this in title V of the telecommunications act of 1996. Websites are not publishers of their content. In 2019 the Supreme court voted that the first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms.
There's really no argument to be had. Nobody in their right mind thinks twitter and facebook should just let you post whatever you want without curation. Maybe some retarded anarchists but most sane people understand that this would ruin the quality and usability of these platforms. Would probably be overrun by bots and influencers (not the instagram type).
So I'm curious where this argument ends for you? Should you be able to post whatever the fuck you want online? Are websites merely nothing more than a vessel? Should they not be able to delete posts, and suspend and ban users? Should that be illegal for them to do?
And if so, should it be illegal for a brick and mortar business to be able to kick you out?
See, the current system is really the only way any of this work.
tldr: Twitter is not infringing on your freedom of speech you fucking morons. -
2021-02-18 at 5:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member This is retarded.
Freedom of speech is just the right to say what you want in public without interference from the government. That is the definition of free speech. Not Bob infringing your rights, not Sally, just the government.
Private property =/= public space.
Websites = private property.
It's really that simple. You don't have the right to go into someone's private property and say whatever the fuck you want. Certainly not when it is criminal or against their terms of service. The argument you are talking about with the communications industry is not a free speech issue. It is a labeling issue. The USA addressed this in title V of the telecommunications act of 1996. Websites are not publishers of their content. In 2019 the Supreme court voted that the first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms.
There's really no argument to be had. Nobody in their right mind thinks twitter and facebook should just let you post whatever you want without curation. Maybe some retarded anarchists but most sane people understand that this would ruin the quality and usability of these platforms. Would probably be overrun by bots and influencers (not the instagram type).
So I'm curious where this argument ends for you? Should you be able to post whatever the fuck you want online? Are websites merely nothing more than a vessel? Should they not be able to delete posts, and suspend and ban users? Should that be illegal for them to do?
And if so, should it be illegal for a brick and mortar business to be able to kick you out?
See, the current system is really the only way any of this work.
tldr: Twitter is not infringing on your freedom of speech you fucking morons.
I didn't read any of that. -
2021-02-18 at 5:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member This is retarded.
Freedom of speech is just the right to say what you want in public without interference from the government. That is the definition of free speech. Not Bob infringing your rights, not Sally, just the government.
Private property =/= public space.
Websites = private property.
It's really that simple. You don't have the right to go into someone's private property and say whatever the fuck you want. Certainly not when it is criminal or against their terms of service. The argument you are talking about with the communications industry is not a free speech issue. It is a labeling issue. The USA addressed this in title V of the telecommunications act of 1996. Websites are not publishers of their content. In 2019 the Supreme court voted that the first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms.
There's really no argument to be had. Nobody in their right mind thinks twitter and facebook should just let you post whatever you want without curation. Maybe some retarded anarchists but most sane people understand that this would ruin the quality and usability of these platforms. Would probably be overrun by bots and influencers (not the instagram type).
So I'm curious where this argument ends for you? Should you be able to post whatever the fuck you want online? Are websites merely nothing more than a vessel? Should they not be able to delete posts, and suspend and ban users? Should that be illegal for them to do?
And if so, should it be illegal for a brick and mortar business to be able to kick you out?
See, the current system is really the only way any of this work.
tldr: Twitter is not infringing on your freedom of speech you fucking morons.
It's not an infringement of your legally protected 'right' to freedom of speech, but it does infringe on the freedom of speech. It's a pretty simple distinction. Twitter should take inspiration from the wisdom of the founding fathers and prevent themselves from abridging the speech of their users. They won't, and the government can't force them to, but they could do more to protect their users ability to speak on their platform. Twitter could give people the right to say what they want on their private property. They don't. Therefore they choose to infringe on people's freedom of speech. 🤷 -
2021-02-18 at 5:28 PM UTCGovernments don't create freedoms, they define them by having the power to deny them. Or something. You were always free to speak. Government had the power to stop you. A wise government decided to take that power away from themselves. Twitter hasn't decided the same.
-
2021-02-18 at 5:28 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 5:28 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 5:29 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 5:31 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 5:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai It's not an infringement of your legally protected 'right' to freedom of speech, but it does infringe on the freedom of speech. It's a pretty simple distinction. Twitter should take inspiration from the wisdom of the founding fathers and prevent themselves from abridging the speech of their users. They won't, and the government can't force them to, but they could do more to protect their users ability to speak on their platform. Twitter could give people the right to say what they want on their private property. They don't. Therefore they choose to infringe on people's freedom of speech. 🤷
It's a GOD given right! meaning no HUMAN can infringe upon it because GOD is GOD! -
2021-02-18 at 5:54 PM UTCTed Cruz is the absolute fucking worst. The absolute worst. It's inconceivable that he doesn't abuse children regularly. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about him. Can't think of a currenrt US politician who is a bigger piece of shitThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-02-18 at 6:01 PM UTCIt's the only video I could find in my youtube history. The one I wanted was way better, I will explain what its about when I can remember it.
He is a faggot though. Lying ted that ended up SUCCing that orange toad mushroom dick -
2021-02-18 at 9:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai It's not an infringement of your legally protected 'right' to freedom of speech, but it does infringe on the freedom of speech. It's a pretty simple distinction. Twitter should take inspiration from the wisdom of the founding fathers and prevent themselves from abridging the speech of their users. They won't, and the government can't force them to, but they could do more to protect their users ability to speak on their platform. Twitter could give people the right to say what they want on their private property. They don't. Therefore they choose to infringe on people's freedom of speech. 🤷
Uh, I already showed you what the definition of freedom of speech is. You're making one up now. Did you even read my post? Internet isn't the public. End discussion. -
2021-02-18 at 9:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo Ted Cruz is the absolute fucking worst. The absolute worst. It's inconceivable that he doesn't abuse children regularly. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about him. Can't think of a currenrt US politician who is a bigger piece of shit
Him flying to Cancun to escape the snow is honestly hilarious. He's just like mitch mcconnell. Just complete sacks of shit who don't give a fuck. Videos of him pre trump election are such a mindfuck 180 -
2021-02-18 at 9:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member Uh, I already showed you what the definition of freedom of speech is. You're making one up now. Did you even read my post? Internet isn't the public. End discussion.
Your definition is flawed. Freedom of speech is the philosophical principle. It doesn't matter if the internet is public or not. It is not a legal issue, it is a philosophical one. Private companies are legally allowed to control what kinds of speech are allowed on their property, and to what extent they decide to do so is a freedom of speech issue. Just not a legal issue.
Originally posted by Meikai Twitter could give people the right to say whatever they want on their private property. They don't. Therefore they choose to infringe on people's freedom of speech. 🤷
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
