1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Official] Censorship from governmental actors thread

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, May 28, 2021.

?

Who does it better?

  1. Sweet Lou 42

    40.7%
  2. tinman

    59.3%
  1. durvasa

    durvasa Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    39,045
    Likes Received:
    16,597

    Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to: (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;

    (b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;

    (c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and

    (d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.

    Sec. 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech. (a) No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order.

    I’m curious how Trump would define “the American people” here. And he talks about “constitutionally protected speech”, but then why does the EO specifically refer to American “citizens”, as if the Constitution only pertains to them?

    These points seem especially relevant given the Trump administration’s efforts to limit who counts as a citizen and otherizing foreign nationals.
     
    fchowd0311 likes this.
  2. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,478
    @Os Trigonum ..isn't it true that a lot of libertarians and fascists want to portray basic rights like due process as only reserved for citizens and not any people within the borders of the US even though that's what the Constitution says?
    Do you agree with that?
     
  3. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,838
    Likes Received:
    122,991
    don't know the answer to that; FIRE does not seem to spend much time on the question (re "citizens"):

    https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/...ews/trumps-stated-promise-stop-all-government

    It also might leave open the possibility that Trump sees a role for federal law enforcement to monitor and/or suppress the speech of foreign terrorist groups, e.g., Isis on twitter
     
  4. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55,682
    Likes Received:
    43,478
    Its worrisome given the fascist/libertarian movement has routinely used the argument that someone is a non citizen to violate their bill of rights like denying due process. You were defending Gitmo right? So the precedent makes it worrisome.
     
  5. deb4rockets

    deb4rockets Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    25,651
    Likes Received:
    33,184
    Like Hitler, Putin, and the other dictator types, Trump wants to control what the news and media say, Trump wants to have control over all news and media, to make them report only the stories he wants the people to hear and believe. He wants to punish, censor, or punish anyone daring to tell the public what he wants to keep hidden.

    True free-speech emergency’: alarm over Trump’s ‘chilling’ attacks on media

    Warning comes as FCC, chaired by Trump ally and Project 2025 author, orders investigations into US media groups

    “The first amendment exists to stop the government from shutting down speech it doesn’t like. A weaponized FCC is trying to do exactly that. The FCC chairman is weaponizing the power of the agency President Trump appointed him to lead, in order to go after the president’s perceived enemies and chill critical coverage,” Aaron said.

    “The government should never interfere with such editorial decisions or news content. Yet the FCC has sent threatening letters and launched investigations over editorial decision-making, reporting on law-enforcement activities, and basic factchecking. This is chilling and dangerous.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/24/trump-free-speech-media-attack
     
  6. Commodore

    Commodore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    33,856
    Likes Received:
    17,809
  7. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,838
    Likes Received:
    122,991
    might as well bump to complete the Censorship Thread Trifecta
     
    DonnyMost likes this.
  8. astros123

    astros123 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    13,071
    This boomer was posting articles claiming the government flagging medical disinformation posts and asking the social media team to take them down was "weaponization." The government never threatened the corporations with doj prosecution. The government never threatened to halt mergers if they didn't. They never sent the posts to their employers to get them fired.

    Trumps FCC is demanding corporations to capitulate to their whelms or else they wont get mergers approved. His FCC threatened ABC if they didnt fire Kimmel or take actions.

    The reason why I call you a moron is bcz you're a disingenuous hack who believes in nothing other than cheerleadering for conservatives.
     
  9. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    49,298
    Likes Received:
    20,416
  10. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,838
    Likes Received:
    122,991
    gift link

    https://www.wsj.com/opinion/democra...a?st=Wy6sP4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    The Brendan Carr Democrats
    Not long ago they sought to give more power to the FCC to regulate political speech.
    By The Editorial Board
    Sept. 19, 2025 5:20 pm ET

    Democrats are up in arms over Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr’s use of regulatory power to silence critics of Donald Trump, and they’re right. But they’d have more credibility if they admitted their own recent attempts to expand federal power over the media, the web and political speech.

    In laws passed last century, the FCC has broad power to regulate broadcasters that use the public airwaves. License holders are required by law to operate in the “public interest,” however regulators define it, and the FCC must determine that transfers of licenses are in the public interest. Mr. Carr is using this leverage to pressure broadcasters to toe the Administration’s line and drop critics like Jimmy Kimmel.

    “We’re going to hold these broadcasters accountable to the public interest,” Mr. Carr said Thursday on Fox News. “And if broadcasters don’t like that simple solution, they can turn their license into the FCC.” Eleven Senate Democrats condemned Mr. Carr for trying to “act as the speech police and force broadcasters to adopt political viewpoints that you favor.”

    How quickly memories fade. When Democrats controlled the White House, they argued for giving the FCC additional power to police speech by expanding its writ to cable networks and broadband providers. They claimed to want to prevent discrimination and what they called misinformation. The latter is what censors on the right call Mr. Kimmel’s comments.

    New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján suggested in an NPR interview that he believed the FCC could police the speech of broadcasters: “And just as the affiliates on the broadcasting side have to get a license that would not allow [news distortions], why is it that folks on the other side within the same corporation are able to do it all while hurting the American people?” Mr. Carr couldn’t have said it better.

    Don’t forget how Democrats who controlled the FCC under Barack Obama and Joe Biden sought to classify internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II authorizes the FCC to regulate common carriers in “the public interest.” Progressives claimed such regulation was needed to ensure “net neutrality.”

    Their real goal was to give the FCC more political control over the internet and speech. The Obama Title II rule “compels private Internet service providers to supply an open platform for all would-be Internet speakers” to “enhance certain voices and alter the content available to the citizenry,” then D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a dissenting opinion.

    Some Democratic Senators wanted to go even further to police speech online. Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Peter Welch (Vt.) introduced legislation in 2023 to establish a new independent agency, the Federal Digital Platform Commission, to regulate the content moderation policies and algorithms of online platforms to ensure they aren’t unfair or harmful.

    Rohit Chopra, an Elizabeth Warren acolyte who led the Biden Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, proposed in 2018 a Public Integrity Protection Agency. Regulators in that agency would be empowered to “inspect and investigate individuals and companies seeking to influence federal officials,” including think tanks and nonprofits.

    All of these ideas are dangerous for free speech, which is why we oppose them. Imagine how Mr. Trump could have used these powers and agencies to harass and silence opponents. No business would be safe from his speech police, including newspapers.

    If Democrats really care about a threat to the First Amendment and democracy from regulators and a willful President, they’d stop trying to give them more power and instead limit the power the FCC now has.

    Appeared in the September 20, 2025, print edition as 'The Brendan Carr Democrats'.


     
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,838
    Likes Received:
    122,991
    Google to bring back accounts banned at Biden admin’s insistence: ‘Unacceptable and wrong’

    https://nypost.com/2025/09/23/us-ne...-for-repeated-violations-of-covid-19-content/

    excerpt:

    WASHINGTON — Google told House lawmakers Tuesday that it would reinstate YouTube accounts that the Biden administration “pressed” them to “remove” over content related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Alphabet chief counsel Daniel Donovan told members of the House Judiciary that the 46th administration “created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation.”

    “It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the Company [Alphabet] moderates content,” Donovan wrote, “and the Company has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds.”

    Users including current FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, now-White House counterterrorism chief Sebastian Gorka and “War Room” podcast host Steve Bannon had been yanked off the video site in recent years after being flagged for repeated violations of COVID-19” and “elections integrity” policies.

    Those users will now be able “to rejoin the platform,” according to Donovan’s letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Post.

    ***
    The Biden administration defended its actions by saying it was merely making requests that tech companies remove suspected misinformation, rather than demands.
    more at the link
     
  12. astros123

    astros123 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    13,071
    The supreme court already stated the biden admin didnt "press" Google to do anything and there was never any threats displayed but of course you have to spin propaganda for Trump.

    You continue to embarrass yourself every day
     
  13. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,838
    Likes Received:
    122,991
    it's good to have a hobby
     
  14. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    6,955
    Google just said they did... and the fact that the account were disabled tells you all you need to know. The Democrats have a long standing track record of censorship and de-platforming Republicans. President Trump was removed from social media at the behest of Democrats. Surely you aren't denying this, are you? Wow, if so.
     
  15. astros123

    astros123 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    13,071
    Yeah cuz Google is trying to get the doj to drop its latest appeal to the verdict in the antitrust lawsuit the biden admin won against them. Youre too dumb to understand how corporations function. The supreme court already ruled on the facts
     
  16. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    6,955
    You are 100% wrong. It's shocking to me that you would look past decades of Democrat censorship and de-platforming and think that they didn't do it this time. How naive can one possibly be? And on top of that you are accusing the Chief Counsel of Google of lying to members of the House Judiciary Committee.

    Remember, when you lash out and insult people, you have lost. You've also made yourself look small. And that's why people struggle to take you seriously... I continue to believe your mental health journey will be best served by a 1-week suspension. A reset that can allow you to come back with more clear thinking and less frustration/hostility.


    GOOD DAY
     
  17. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,838
    Likes Received:
    122,991
    it's not a struggle
     
  18. astros123

    astros123 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    13,071
    Wrong. Democratic party through the government did not censor anyone. Bidens FCC did not threaten anyone with consequences if they did not follow through. Your opinion doesnt matter cuz the supreme court already ruled on the facts.

    Yeah the chief council of Google only job is to help Google in any way possible. He doesnt give a **** about the truth or lie. Its funny you think you're making a point here but you arent
     
  19. astros123

    astros123 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    15,206
    Likes Received:
    13,071
    Anyone who reads this thread and looks at your position from 3 years ago to what it is now can automatically assume you're a dumbass. Its just wild you dont realize this yourself
     
  20. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    6,955
    The chief council of Google? Is this him?

    [​IMG]

    Amigo, you can't even spell and you are giving us these profanity-laced, low-information rants... lecturing us in how corporations work and sticking your head in the sand to the Democratic censorship and corrupt activity. You'll have to forgive us for not taking you seriously. Again, I urge you to take a 1-week suspension to get your mental health leveled up. I'm concerned for your well being. Things do not look good!


    GOOD DAY
     

Share This Page