Clarence Thomas Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated

[Zan15]

I find it funny that Republicans and their sympathizers tend to be harshly against illegal things solely because "They're illegal" even if it's dumb that they're illegal things. I mean border crossing? You'd think to them that crime was worse than murder. But nope, banning people on twitter for inciting violence is legal, but now they want to make that illegal.

You do realize @Yas-Queen Rochana that if the government did start regulating social media to make it a guaranteed right to access those platforms, there would be much more serious governmental punishments for people being assholes? Yeah, NOBODY wants that.

they don't realize that the second these huge tech companies are forced to allow everyone no matter what they do and 230 being "abolished" causes them financial harm....their armies of highly paid lawyers will pounce on the users instantly.

You can bet 120% the use of the web sites from that point forward will become "contracted" directly at and individual basis. No more simple click through of generic agreements and terms of service.

They will have to give up all their personal information just to be allowed on the site yet alone "post" anything. Will make suing them very easy.

Forget winning or losing, just the cost of defending yourself from a blank judgement on you will bankrupt a lot of people.

They never fully follow through the impact of their desires.

[Shadowferal]

That's what I was hoping but we live in an Era where sarcasm and satire is super huard to tell.

Understandable. My fault for omitting the sarcasm tag.

[Machismo]

Unfortunately tech companies have the USCDA to deal with and that is why can be changed on them. Of course, it'll be on the USSC to determine to what length sites like Twitter and Facebook can be considered platforms and publishers, and that is the more contentious issue surrounding section 230 of the CDA.

The law is on the books, the SCOTUS is really irrelevant at this point.

Where is this platform versus publisher law? Please cite it.

[Edge-]

The law is on the books, the SCOTUS is really irrelevant at this point.

Where is this platform versus publisher law? Please cite it.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...-doesnt-matter

It doesn't matter, actually.

[Machismo]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...-doesnt-matter

It doesn't matter, actually.

Oh, I know it doesn't matter. The publisher vs. platform thing is simply a lie. People have been parroting that shit from Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz for years now.

[tehdang]

Imagine thinking that twitter would just ban all the Democratic candidates before an election. You're stretching really far into the territory of "Things that would never ever ever happen". I realize you think people don't understand your point of view and are trying to come up with analogies to make it more relatable, but trust me, we know exactly where you're coming from. There's things that are a difference of opinion, and then there are things that are just WRONG. Cutting off people's twitter usage because they're sending death threats and inciting violence is a far cry different from just tossing someone off twitter just because.

You managed to avoid comment on the legality and whether or not first amendment rights are implicated in my hypothetical. I couldn’t care less about your suppositions of likelihood if you can’t speak to the topic.

[Machismo]

You managed to avoid comment on the legality and whether or not first amendment rights are implicated in my hypothetical. I couldn’t care less about your suppositions of likelihood if you can’t speak to the topic.

Twitter or Facebook would be entirely within their rights to do so, just like when the dipshits on the Trump subreddit banned everyone who didn't support a racist piece of shit.

[cubby]

You managed to avoid comment on the legality and whether or not first amendment rights are implicated in my hypothetical. I couldn’t care less about your suppositions of likelihood if you can’t speak to the topic.

Mods on a public forum can regulate based on their rules, that are agreed to by the users. Trump being perma-banned was a mod enforcing the rules of a social media site. It's not Twitter's fault that Trump called for violence and racism. It's Trump's.

When you realize that it's your Dear Leader's actions that cause his ban, a ban in a private social media forum, you'll be on the way to healing. Every time you think this is a first amendment issue, Trump getting perma-banned, you're just that much farther from enlightenment.

[tehdang]

Mods on a public forum can regulate based on their rules, that are agreed to by the users. Trump being perma-banned was a mod enforcing the rules of a social media site. It's not Twitter's fault that Trump called for violence and racism. It's Trump's.

When you realize that it's your Dear Leader's actions that cause his ban, a ban in a private social media forum, you'll be on the way to healing. Every time you think this is a first amendment issue, Trump getting perma-banned, you're just that much farther from enlightenment.

I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.

[Machismo]

I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.

Evidence, please.

[tehdang]

Evidence, please.

Surely a libertarian doesn’t need exhaustive evidence for a company doing as it pleases. Pretend it’s a Tennessee bourbon company writing rules for what qualifies.

[Machismo]

Surely a libertarian doesn’t need exhaustive evidence for a company doing as it pleases. Pretend it’s a Tennessee bourbon company writing rules for what qualifies.

I expect people to be able to back up their claims. If not, that's fine... I'll take your retraction.

I have no problem if Twitter wants to ban Nazi shit stains like Trump. I get that you want to clutch at pearls for your guy, but he got booted for a very good reason.

[postman1782]

I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.

Oh, you think they would ban a user that hasn't broken the ToS?

[cubby]

I mean, what rules? They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so. That’s why I brought up the prospect of declaring one political party’s representatives to be in violation and banning the lot. Well—they’re a private company, capable of declaring certain speech as against their rules and subject to ban. You have no appeal as to whether your neighbor was guilty of the same, but was viewed as having more right opinions.

I don’t have a problem with that particular ban, per se, just some ignorant users that have inconsistent opinions on a public forum.

So, you don't know that sites have posting rules? My apologies, I didn't realize that we were working with such a high level of ignorance.

Trump's call to violence and racism was CLEARLY a rules violation. How you don't see that is why you're still posting the above drivel.

[postman1782]

So, you don't know that sites have posting rules? My apologies, I didn't realize that we were working with such a high level of ignorance.

Trump's call to violence and racism was CLEARLY a rules violation. How you don't see that is why you're still posting the above drivel.

Yep, if anything, Trump should have been banned, literally years before he was banned. There are plenty of his posts that violated the Terms for Twitter, but since he had such a huge following, paid bots included, it meant that the longer that Twitter kept him, the more money he made them. Hell, my first account that I had, I got banned for calling Ann Coulter a horse faced bitch, which she is, and I took the ban like a champ.

[Edge-]

Oh, you think they would ban a user that hasn't broken the ToS?

Twitter acting in an illogical manner that would actively harm their business is really the only time in which the argument he wants to make holds any water.

But like, it's absolutely fantasy so it's genuinely not worth even bothering with it.

[tehdang]

I expect people to be able to back up their claims. If not, that's fine... I'll take your retraction.

I have no problem if Twitter wants to ban Nazi shit stains like Trump. I get that you want to clutch at pearls for your guy, but he got booted for a very good reason.

You literally quoted my post on Trump's ban, and restated it like what I said, repeated, would be hurtful. Ok, dude.

Oh, you think they would ban a user that hasn't broken the ToS?

Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?

So, you don't know that sites have posting rules? My apologies, I didn't realize that we were working with such a high level of ignorance.

Trump's call to violence and racism was CLEARLY a rules violation. How you don't see that is why you're still posting the above drivel.

It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.

[DarkTZeratul]

You literally quoted my post on Trump's ban, and restated it like what I said, repeated, would be hurtful. Ok, dude.


Sorry, rephrase that as a response to my post?


It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.

You're free to pretend that Donald Trump was banned from Twitter for literally no reason other than being right-wing, but please don't insist that the rest of us share in your delusion.

[Felya]

They’re free to ban or ignore based on ideology and twist their rules to apply whatever they feel like; they’re free to do so.

What Twitter rules does conservative ideology break?

- - - Updated - - -

You're free to pretend that Donald Trump was banned from Twitter for literally no reason other than being right-wing, but please don't insist that the rest of us share in your delusion.

Maybe that reason is part of Trump ideology...

[cubby]

It's rather strange to hear the defense of unequal application and no appeal to be "Wait, you don't know about TEH RULES?" Yeah, dude, catch up.

There is no unequal application and no appeal. You just think that's the case because your echo chamber told you to think it. Catch up. (am I doing that right? )

- - - Updated - - -

What Twitter rules does conservative ideology break?

That was very nicely done.