Exactly! The Reuplicans just want free reign to spread hate, propaganda and lies anywhere, regardless of whether the business has rules to promote a safe environment. So Nazi like. Then, the hypocrisy begins when they are against free speech if it is not what they want people to hear, even if it is based on facts. Facts and the safety of the people are the 2 things missing from Republican values.
Just trying to get somewhere would not be a valid excuse. There has to be a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. So you cannot just plow into a protest out of nowhere. Theoretically you could drive a car painted up like the General Lee to a protest and hope they attack you so you have an excuse to plow into them. I don't know how well that would play with a jury though, and all the people at the protest have to do to short circuit you plan is not attack you, then you are stuck waiting for a protest to end. So it is the law itself that prevents violent actors from ramming their car into a crowd of people they don't like. Yes there are. Twitter has the largest market share, which would be why someone would want their post on twitter vs. parler or gab or whatever. Same with youtube vs. b****ute or ugetube. Twitter is less supportive of free speech than those others. Yes, that is the argument. Yes. I am not a free speech absolutist, but I would have far fewer restrictions than twitter. Yes, and they do. That just means they are less supportive of total free speech. Murderers murder people, yes. They can target people in their homes, on the street, at work, at the beach, or anywhere else. I have no problem with people speaking that disagree with me. Their freedom of speech should not impede my freedom to travel, be they BLM, MAGA, or even a libertarian march. Where rights come in conflict, the person being more intrusive on the rights of others should give way. Me travelling on the road that is meant for travelling doesn't limit your speech.
The Republican that cries and moan the loudest about suppression of speech censure their own party members for being critical of Trump. Latest in the growing list Ohio Republican Party Censures U.S. Rep. Gonzalez for Voting to Impeach Trump | Top News | US News
Their defense of Trump just shows how low their standards have sunk. They defend a man who embodies the traits of the worst types of human beings combined into one body.
Freedom to travel? Missed that in the Constitution. But even if such a freedom existed, you can always travel a different route. And you began by saying "just trying to get somewhere would not be a valid excuse." So apparently we are in agreement. And since we have agreed there is no "total" freedom of speech, the only argument you are making is that private businesses don't have the freedom to determine what they can allow in their own businesses. Market share is not a factor in the legal application of freedom of speech. And twitter isn't making a decision based on metrics of "less supportive of freedom of speech" but rather what type of speech that they deem hateful, false, libelous, and dangerous that they would allow in their private business. All which could cause legal actions against them, and as such they are protecting themselves and their stockholders from legal action. Which seems reasonable for a private business to do. trump can't tweet, or post to facebook... but he can post things to parler, and he can go on fox news, oann, newsmax and other private businesses.
Because they think he is their golden ticket to their values. What Trump Republicans are doing is prepping the whole system for the real 'steal the election' in 2024. In 2020, there were enough Republicans to stand in their ways. All of those Republicans are weakened or removed from position to stand up again. Those that know better aren't speaking up or pushing back because they believe Trump is still their best chance to get to their values. The regular Conservatives that aren't Trump supporters aren't speaking up either because they don't think there is a danger here, not enough to suppress their values. Well, from my point of view, all these people don't have Democracy as a value, or if it is, it's not worth defending. They also do not have free speech as a value. They claim it to be one in their cries about being suppressed, but their action of suppressing free speech and different viewpoints of their party members shows their true color.
Most of Republican leadership is acting out of fear and opportunism. People like Elise Stefanik have previously criticized Trump and I doubt she in the last two years has suddenly changed her world view. Most likely with the problems with Liz Cheney she's seeing an opportunity to vault into leadership. Whether this helps them win in 2024 I'm sure many believe it but it wouldn't surprise me if many don't but they are more concerned about being primaried in 2022, seeing fundraising dry up and purged out of leadership. For most politicians especially in the House the only thing that matters is the next race and listening to Kevin McCarthy this is far less about personal loyalty to Trump than it is trying to keep the House GOP united and energized to win back the House. The only way he sees doing that is to continue to ride with Trump.
It's been pretty obvious to me that the interest in free speech is only where it get's their message out.
You are hung up on laws. Freedom of movement is recognized as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, if you want to talk about the Constitution, it is recognized as one of the Privileges and Immunities recognized in the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article 4 Section 2 and the 14th amendment. The new law that was passed in one or two states talks about running people over in the road, and under what circumstances it can be done. It is an adjustment to self-defense law, and unrelated to freedom of movement. I am talking about how people should interact with each other. I have no problem with people saying whatever they want. I would like them not to block my freedom of movement. It is a question of courtesy. That is not an argument that I have made at all. I never said that it was. In fact, I specifically said I was not talking about the legal aspect of freedom of speech. They can make whatever decision they like. I can disapprove of their decision not to support greater freedom of speech. Whether it is to avoid legal action or just because they feel like it, they can do what they want. Yes, but who said otherwise?
Is there one person here who doubts that a Republican House in 2024 will refuse to certify the election if they lose and invoke the 12th amendment to vote in Trump or whatever autocrat they nominate??? Please make me a believer that they will not do that.
They are laying the groundwork to take power by any means necessary, regardless of who the majority of Americans vote for. They have chosen that a seditionist traitor is the face of their party already, and standing with Trump pretty much sums up their agenda. Lie, cheat, steal, and incite a coup, if that's what it takes to rule again
Watching this... the looks on the faces of the women behind the guy with the glasses. And the look on the woman watching him give his answers.
Funny hearing a prosecutor saying someone is "hung up on laws". In a discussion where a lawmaker is claiming someone's first amendment right is being violated. Also find it interesting that your argument against people demonstrating in streets (and in doing so, exercising their free speech), has devolved into a discussion of "courtesy." Also interesting to see you now are only "disapproving" of a private business exercising their right to decide what people can and cannot do in their private business. I am sure twitter.com is unhappy you disapprove of them. But I am sure they are happy you are giving them permission to do so.
I just don’t think people realize that the House of Representatives in the constitution has the power to vote on basically whoever they want to be president. If the Dems hold the Senate maybe they have some parliamentary power to halt that process of holding the vote by state, but the way I read it, if they win back the house, they will hold the power to disregard the people’s vote. Why aren’t people saying I’m crazy anymore?
Did you think we don't have opinions outside of law? I am talking about principals. It hasn't devolved to that level, it was always about courtesy and safety. You are less likely to be hit by a car if you are not in the street. You don't stop people from getting where they are going on time if you are not in the street. What else would it have been about? Now as opposed to when? A website is incapable of feeling unhappy. I doubt the owners know or care. Permission is not mine to give.
It's obvious. GOP knows it can't use the courts ( they lost there and voter fraud was struck down) so they are resorting to using public opinion in order pass their voting restrictions.
You are talking about "principals"? High school principals? If you meant principles... I think a self identified lawyer arguing for principles is a bit funny. Especially one that supported donald trump, and the attack on our capital by trump supporters. But sure... And now claiming you oppose some protestors on streets due to "courtesy" and safety? LOL.
