I give our never trumpers credit for not jumping on this story immediately. It was tough to believe. I am surprised that their political leaders didnt take that route as well. The usual DnD suspects defended and wanted it to be true but the fact that no thread was started showed that they were skeptical from the jump.
Did you ever wonder why there wasn’t a thread started about the Aurora shooting or why there wasn’t a whole lot of coverage as there usually would be?
I honestly did. I posted in the mass shooting thread about it but it fell off the first page pretty quickly.
Jussie doing his part to help keep racial divide strong and to keep us distracted from polititions ****ing us over everyday
I disagree that Facebook or Twitter are the only ways or primary ways that people communicate with each other. I know many people that don't really have either and have no issue. People can just use their cellphones to talk to people they know. There are other platforms besides the two and how are we determining that these two are now state actors? Just based on their size? I don't see the difference here between a private university telling someone they can't speak at their school or twitter doing so. The thing is, this is capitalism at work. A website called Gab just proves why twitter and facebook ban these people...because no one wants to go on a site where they have to openly see hate speech and death threats these are mostly what these sites ban. That's why Gab failed, that's why a lot of the edgy alternatives to Patreon, Twitter, failed. Because the reality is no one wants to see that crap except for the edgelords and trolls of the internet and by forcing Twitter to accept it you're just going to hurt its business. From what I see, a lot of speech that is banned on these websites aren't even protected under free speech in the first place. Your article mentions Alex Jones, what he did is not protected under free speech. Lying and slandering people and putting them into a conspiracy theory all while suggesting that violence needs to be done is not protected by free speech. Alex Jones got himself banned. I keep hearing about how conservatives are under fire for free speech but I still see them all on there...unless we are talking about the White Nationalists and Supremacists and Neo-Nazis...Ann Coulter, Shapiro, Tucker, name it...all of these people are on mainstream social media. No one is banning conservative speech...it just so happens that some conservative speech is disgusting and gets banned, there have been liberals banned as well. The fact is, a lot of the stuff getting banned hurts business. It drives away users and advertisers, that's the main reason they ban that stuff. I just wonder how this would apply to the internet as a whole because the government isn't going to make rules just affecting Facebook and Twitter.
Are we sure she is still not on some chronic? Look at this crazy heifer, giggling and acting oblivious.
I don't know, but we may have a better idea when the Supreme Court actually rules on the case cited in the article I posted. We can all have our opinions, but at the end of the day it is a sufficient enough issue that the Supreme Court may take it up (I say may because the case does not directly deal with FB or Twitter -- people just speculate that the opinion may have broader ramifications that impact both.) The fact that the Court decided to hear the case is significant.
One other point: free speech is not limited to talking on a cell phone with someone you already know obviously. Part of the concept was to allow for free expression of ideas, often of a political nature, to help communicate/influence/educate the populace. Like pamplets printed off a printing press or making speeches in the town square. Those things are not effective ways of reaching the populace anymore. If you end up with only a handful of effective ways of communicating to the public at large, it becomes a more difficult question at least for me as to what starts to impinge the first amendment. I am not weighing in on hate speech or defamation. I am not framing this from a conservative or liberal perspective. I wonder if in the Knight case involving Trump and Twitter if it wasn't Trump that was trying to block access but a pro-Trump Twitter mgmt (so not a governmental actor), would there be any question that folks would complain about Twitter blocking their protected speech in response to Trump's tweets? I am merely making the point that it is no longer a black and white issue (at least to me -- I respect your conviction in your views) especially when a handful of corporations could decide what is or isn't acceptable speech and therefore impede effective communication with the public at large. I think that could be very dangerous in a number of different contexts and policies shouldn't be driven by the current controversy.
It's a backdoor way for the government to censor people, by leveraging companies into doing it for them in return for looking the other way for their clearly anti competitive business models. The other is through the financial system, see : Operation Choke Point. The problem of course is that your weapons today become their weapons tomorrow, there's a great example of it from the UK, where unions and the like promoted public nuisance laws in the 30's to prevent fascists from gathering and being able to promote their ideas, and the UK government have beaten unions over the head with that law ever since. The right at the moment is more open to dialogue and far less censorious, but that wasn't the case 15 years ago, and might not be the case in 15 years, but we aren't training companies to promote the left, we're training them to surrender to the mob.
What kind of excuse is this? "In any case....the first fake crime didn't work so he had to go bigger". You are supporting a culture of no accountability.
It also outs those who justify and weasel around accountability with these events because the NOW defendant is on their team.
I was waiting for a Shelia Jackson Lee we need to believe the victims Me Too thread but it never happened.
Whatever happened it doesn't invalidate the first crime - no one has proven that wasn't a crime yet. This is exactly what you guys do - use one example to invalidate everything else.
Smollett's justification for his hate crime hoax is reportedly that a racist letter was sent to the Empire set targeting him and it didn't get a bigger reaction. For obvious reasons, most people suspect Smollett sent the letter as well. https://www.thedailybeast.com/repor...after-racist-letter-didnt-get-bigger-reaction
