Jump to content

Free Speech!

BS Wildcats

By BS Wildcats
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chester86
Chester86

This is my only social media.  I like it that way, and sometimes wish I could avoid the political section.  It’s just really interesting to me to see divergent view points.  I am still amazed that I a

BS Wildcats
BS Wildcats

I guess the CEO’s of these social media leftist groups have no problem letting the Ayatollah still have open accounts.  And this from a man that openly declared death to Americans.  And the Democrats 

AggiesAreWe
AggiesAreWe

Maybe for a fee we can allow free speech here.

Realville

Realville

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Well since you Trump worshippers are 4D backgammon mega geniuses, surely you’d have no trouble replicating  another cult website on your own cult servers 

Nice deflection. Why don’t you address the violation of free speech pertaining to the removal of Parler almost simultaneously the same time they removed many prominent conservatives off Twitter, You Tube , Google. I didn’t see any removal of anyone on the left on social platforms when they were putting out lies about the Russia Hoax for 3 years with zero evidence. You are evidence that the complete dumbing down of America is complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Realville said:

Nice deflection. Why don’t you address the violation of free speech pertaining to the removal of Parler almost simultaneously the same time they removed many prominent conservatives off Twitter, You Tube , Google. I didn’t see any removal of anyone on the left on social platforms when they were putting out lies about the Russia Hoax for 3 years with zero evidence. You are evidence that the complete dumbing down of America is complete.

There's no violation of free speech.  The government wasn't involved and did nothing to restrict anyone's speech. Now you might find ample grounds to prove that an anti-trust breakup is needed, but you'll need a sympathetic Justice Department to do that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Realville

Realville

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

There's no violation of free speech.  The government wasn't involved and did nothing to restrict anyone's speech. Now you might find ample grounds to prove that an anti-trust breakup is needed, but you'll need a sympathetic Justice Department to do that.  

Parler is a platform of speech not a publisher of speech just like Twitter. If Big Tech wants to censor speech then they need to have section 230 protection removed so people can sue the crap out of them when they start doing stupid crap like they did to Parler. When you edit people’s speech you are a publisher not a platform so you should have to go by publishers rules and laws. Either your a platform for speech or your a publisher of speech, you can’t be both. If your a platform for speech then everyone has a voice not just liberals. 
 

“If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”           
- George Orwell


 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Realville said:

Parler is a platform of speech not a publisher of speech just like Twitter. If Big Tech wants to censor speech then they need to have section 230 protection removed so people can sue the crap out of them when they start doing stupid crap like they did to Parler. When you edit people’s speech you are a publisher not a platform so you should have to go by publishers rules and laws. Either your a platform for speech or your a publisher of speech, you can’t be both. If your a platform for speech then everyone has a voice not just liberals. 
 

“If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”           
- George Orwell


 

 

   

Isn't it crazy how we all feel like bakers should have the right to deny service to anybody that they want, but tech companies can't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmashMouth

SmashMouth

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Isn't it crazy how we all feel like bakers should have the right to deny service to anybody that they want, but tech companies can't?

Yeah. I hear ya. But if one baker turns you down, you can go to another right down the street. The tech companies have a monopoly. You don’t have the same opportunity with the tech companies. There’s no going down the street to get your rainbow cake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InMAGAWeTrust

InMAGAWeTrust

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

There's no violation of free speech.  The government wasn't involved and did nothing to restrict anyone's speech. Now you might find ample grounds to prove that an anti-trust breakup is needed, but you'll need a sympathetic Justice Department to do that.  

These snowflake crybaby trump worshippers went MIA when I get banned from SETX POL, but then throw a tantrum when Trump gets booted off Twitter.

 

phew the mental gymnastics these guys perform is just astounding 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Realville

Realville

Posted
Posted
Just now, InMAGAWeTrust said:

These snowflake crybaby trump worshippers went MIA when I get banned from SETX POL, but then throw a tantrum when Trump gets booted off Twitter.

 

phew the mental gymnastics these guys perform is just astounding 

Man that sure is a lot adjectives coming from a noun that doesn’t understand the Constitution.

 

“If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”           
- George Orwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Realville

Realville

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Isn't it crazy how we all feel like bakers should have the right to deny service to anybody that they want, but tech companies can't?

I like the way that you did not address the crux of the post which is the difference between a platform and publisher. Truth has no agenda, you have a hard time dealing with the hypocrisy of the left based on facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmashMouth

SmashMouth

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

These snowflake crybaby trump worshippers went MIA when I get banned from SETX POL, but then throw a tantrum when Trump gets booted off Twitter.

 

phew the mental gymnastics these guys perform is just astounding 

I didn’t think you should have been banned even though you broke some cardinal rules. I even asked if you could come back. It wasn’t any fun when you got yourself kicked out SillyWilly. I said earlier I was glad you’re back. Perhaps the others didn’t stick up for you because you were inconsequential. Idk. But welcome home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chester86

Chester86

Posted
Posted

Some people have a very high opinion of themselves.  The narcissism runs strong with this one.  And on a side note, a bakery who is owned by one person, seeks payments for their services and then refuses to serve someone is vastly different than a publicly traded company who is open to everyone, doesn’t charge and then singles out someone and bans them because of peer pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So Verizon has the right to cut off service based on religious beliefs?

No.

Civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex, and, in some cases, religion.  There is a push to include LGBTQ and I suspect that we'll see that in near future, but as of yet it hasn't happened.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

No.

Civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex, and, in some cases, religion.  There is a push to include LGBTQ and I suspect that we'll see that in near future, but as of yet it hasn't happened.   

You just said "You mean a private company is different from a private company?" when comparing the bakers to a tech company.

Explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I was criticizing Realville who stated:

"Religious beliefs of a Baker being singular versus a Tech Company is no comparison. Try again"

When both are private companies and subject to the same protections afforded under the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1990.

My statement was sarcasm/irony.

 

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Isn't it crazy how we all feel like bakers should have the right to deny service to anybody that they want, but tech companies can't?

 

1 hour ago, Realville said:

Religious beliefs of a Baker being singular versus a Tech Company is no comparison. Try again.

 

58 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

You mean a private company is completely different than a private company.  I get it. 

 

Not buying it, you got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth...which you often do.

This subject is no different than any others though, you just lost track of your posts...lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

 

 

 

 

Not buying it, you got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth...which you often do.

This subject is no different than any others though, you just lost track of your posts...lol.

No, I've done no such of thing.  I was ridiculing HIS point that somehow big companies have to follow laws that small companies don't.  I'm sorry if irony was lost on you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Realville

Realville

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I was criticizing Realville who stated:

"Religious beliefs of a Baker being singular versus a Tech Company is no comparison. Try again"

When both are private companies and subject to the same protections afforded under the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1990.

My statement was sarcasm/irony.

Sole proprietorships and private companies are not the same. I’ve been a sole proprietor for 14 years. As a individual sole proprietor I would not have baked the cake either. I would not want to participate in what God said is wrong. Just wouldn’t want it on my conscience. The money is irrelevant. I’d bake them anything they wanted but not a wedding cake.
 

A sole proprietorship, also known as the sole trader, individual entrepreneurship or proprietorship, is a type of enterprise that is owned and run by one person and in which there is no legal distinction between the owner and the business entity.

A privately held company, private company, or close corporation is a corporation that is not owned by the government,  

This is the hidden content, please
and by a relatively small number of 
This is the hidden content, please
 or company members, which does not offer or trade its company 
This is the hidden content, please
 (
This is the hidden content, please
) to the general public on the 
This is the hidden content, please
 exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately or 
This is the hidden content, please
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,207
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...