Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Machismo]

You keep trying to add something illegal on top of free speech. First ammendment doesn't let you commit crimes in the name of free speech.

The First Amendment does allow you to cease doing business with racist trash.

Man, I love this, keep going!!!

Man, I love private property rights, don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

Ah sorry, i obviously misunderstood your "There are more sinister plans".

I didn't say that, you did...

[Pannonian]

You keep trying to add something illegal on top of free speech. First ammendment doesn't let you commit crimes in the name of free speech.

It's the same because to exercise your free speech in my garden you need to trespass if i don't want you to. If you want to post at my site and i don't want you to you have to trespass my virtual property.

That's the point about rights, they always stand against each other. Your right of free speech doesn't trump my right of property, regardless if its real or virtual.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say that, you did...

i don't want to draw this out unnecessarily, and maybe i just need some more english lessions, but didn't you write exactly that?

There are more sinister plans, I just happen to disagree with her. She's not nearly the fascist that Trump is.

[Machismo]

It's the same because to exercise your free speech in my garden you need to trespass if i don't want you to. If you want to post at my site and i don't want you to you have to trespass my virtual property.

That's the point about rights, they always stand against each other. Your right of free speech doesn't trump my right of property, regardless if its real or virtual.

- - - Updated - - -



i don't want to draw this out unnecessarily, and maybe i just need some more english lessions, but didn't you write exactly that?

I was literally responding to you saying it, using your words. I wasn't referring to her plans being more sinister, I was saying others' plans were more sinister.

You first used it:

Sure, that's why she's wrong, but as i said, i'm pretty sure there is no more sinister plan to limit freedom of association.

Fun Fact:

Currently, the biggest tv station in germany is sendings its xth season of Germanies next Idol (the german version "Deutschland sucht den Superstart"). They already filmed most of it, when one of the judges drifted into the far right edge of the internet with all kind of conspiracy theories. Last week (after another distasteful holocaust reference) they decided to censor him from the show. The viewed an episode last saturday, the guy fully blurred and any of his lines cut out.

Not one politician or media outlet disagreed with that. So there really is no desire to limit freedom of association, it's just that the discussion from the german region translates badly in the context of the US.

[docterfreeze]

The First Amendment does allow you to cease doing business with racist trash.

Man, I love this, keep going!!!

Man, I love private property rights, don't you?

I'm a big fan of the constitution, which these platforms should have to follow. Otherwise what's stopping the government from using these social media platforms, which have a bigger audience of young people than television, as a constitutional loophole to silence dissidents? Who's to say that isn't already happening?

[Edge-]

I'm a big fan of the constitution, which these platforms should have to follow.

They do. There's nothing in the Constitution obligating them to provide their free service to anyone if they choose not to, especially if the person in question violated the rules they agreed to in order to use the free service.

Otherwise what's stopping the government from using these social media platforms, which have a bigger audience of young people than television, as a constitutional loophole to silence dissidents?

They're private companies, that's why they're allowed to do this. If the government nationalized Twitter, then it would be affected by the First Amendment.

Who's to say that isn't already happening?

Literally everyone, because there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

[docterfreeze]

They do. There's nothing in the Constitution obligating them to provide their free service to anyone if they choose not to, especially if the person in question violated the rules they agreed to in order to use the free service.



They're private companies, that's why they're allowed to do this. If the government nationalized Twitter, then it would be affected by the First Amendment.



Literally everyone, because there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

In the case of the first amendment they should be treated as the government.

[Machismo]

I'm a big fan of the constitution, which these platforms should have to follow. Otherwise what's stopping the government from using these social media platforms, which have a bigger audience of young people than television, as a constitutional loophole to silence dissidents? Who's to say that isn't already happening?

Yes, let's look at the United States Constitiution:

Here's the First:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Look at that, nothing about private entities not being allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights. It's about the government not doing it. So, it looks like they are following the United States Constitution.

If you find yourself opposing the United States Constitution in order to shill for Nazis... you should probably stop digging.

[Edge-]

In the case of the first amendment they should be treated as the government.

Why? They are not a part of the government and are a private company.

[Machismo]

In the case of the first amendment they should be treated as the government.

Should your home be treated as the government.

[Pannonian]

I'm a big fan of the constitution, which these platforms should have to follow. Otherwise what's stopping the government from using these social media platforms, which have a bigger audience of young people than television, as a constitutional loophole to silence dissidents? Who's to say that isn't already happening?

How are they not following the consitution? The constitution proctects your free speech from government censure. Nothing else.

[Endus]

https://www.stcroixrepublican.org/

Yo, check out the front page of the St. Croix Republican Party.

Fuckin cosplay insurrectionists.

Honestly, the most alarming/telling bit is actually this, IMO;

"President Trump radically changed the Republican Party in 2016, now it's up to us to follow that lead."

In other words; the party as of 2016 is, in their own minds, not the party of any time before that, standing completely distinct ideologically from any of those prior positions (that's the "radical" part of the change, you see). They're saying they are not Republicans, in terms of ideology. That those principles should be abandoned by all Republicans, to blindly follow Trump.

That's cult stuff. Literally. Not pejoratively.

[eschatological]

I'm a big fan of the constitution, which these platforms should have to follow. Otherwise what's stopping the government from using these social media platforms, which have a bigger audience of young people than television, as a constitutional loophole to silence dissidents? Who's to say that isn't already happening?

Do you know the other rights in the Constitution?

Specifically one of the other rights in the 1st Amendment, besides the right to Free Speech?

It's the right to freedom of association.

Twitter has a right to associate with who it wants, without government intervention. This is precisely the right conservatives used to argue vehemently that a Christian baker didn't have to make a gay wedding cake for a homosexual couple getting married. It'll be the precedent used by Twitter's lawyers to show that they don't have to associate with people based on political belief. The conservatives literally made their bed on this one.

And for people who've come to argue about Twitter being the public forum or the public square - are you arguing that newspapers, which were the "public square" before the internet, MUST publish every editorial they receive? Cause that's literally the same argument you're making. Newspapers have a right to not publish what they don't want to publish (CF why a lot of NYT reporters were upset with their conservative editor publishing Tom Cotton late last year), just like Twitter does.

[draynay]

I'm a big fan of the constitution

An interesting position for someone bent on violating it.

[Endus]

I'm a big fan of the constitution, which these platforms should have to follow. Otherwise what's stopping the government from using these social media platforms, which have a bigger audience of young people than television, as a constitutional loophole to silence dissidents? Who's to say that isn't already happening?

The simple reality that none of these platforms have any capacity to silence anyone. It's literally outside of their scope.

Being banned from social media is the equivalent of being told to "take it outside" when you're harassing other customers in a store. That's it. You're still free to rant as much as you want outside the store.

Stop inventing batshit crazy persecution conspiracies, dude.

[docterfreeze]

Why? They are not a part of the government and are a private company.

Because when it comes to the spread of information they have greater control of what's seen than the government.

[Pannonian]

Do you know the other rights in the Constitution?

Specifically one of the other rights in the 1st Amendment, besides the right to Free Speech?

It's the right to freedom of association.

Twitter has a right to associate with who it wants, without government intervention. This is precisely the right conservatives used to argue vehemently that a Christian baker didn't have to make a gay wedding cake for a homosexual couple getting married. It'll be the precedent used by Twitter's lawyers to show that they don't have to associate with people based on political belief. The conservatives literally made their bed on this one.

And for people who've come to argue about Twitter being the public forum or the public square - are you arguing that newspapers, which were the "public square" before the internet, MUST publish every editorial they receive? Cause that's literally the same argument you're making. Newspapers have a right to not publish what they don't want to publish (CF why a lot of NYT reporters were upset with their conservative editor publishing Tom Cotton late last year), just like Twitter does.

Oh, let's go that route. I'll book myself 24 hours on fox every day and insult tucker carlson!

[eschatological]

Because when it comes to the spread of information they have greater control of what's seen than the government.

No, they don't. Trump could literally go to his PRESS BRIEFING ROOM and rant all he wants right now, and people would probably see it, because the cable news networks starve themselves for content by being 24/7.

He doesn't even have to take questions, if he doesn't want to.

[Edge-]

Because when it comes to the spread of information they have greater control of what's seen than the government.

So should newspapers be forced to host every op-ed submitted?

How about cable news shows and radio news shows? At one point those were the best way to spread information, so the government should have taken all of those over too? Or at least forced them to host every single caller shouting that they want to see Black people lynched and that the bloodlines must remain pure?

For a guy who claims to be a fan of the Constitution, you don't seem to have an understanding of even the basic elements of it.

[draynay]

Because when it comes to the spread of information they have greater control of what's seen than the government.

Good luck on that amendment.

[Pannonian]

Because when it comes to the spread of information they have greater control of what's seen than the government.

AH, so now we're getting in the territory of if these corporations are maybe too big? Well, that's a whole other discussion. As far as i know, there is no appendix to the 1st amendment like "unless they're a big tech companies dominating the market".

Sounds like an addition someone can add? But until, it's their right to boot facists.