Do you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about nowjfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 7:27 pmI’m waiting for the explanation you owe me, about how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:43 pmPretty much all this is him not liking insubordination from his employees. What boss tolerates that?KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 4:50 pm https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html
https://freespeechproject.georgetown.edu/tracker-entries/elon-musk-fires-twitter-employees-for-criticizing-him/
https://nypost.com/2022/12/10/elon-musk-threatens-twitter-employees-with-legal-action-if-they-leak-to-press/amp/
https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-censors-employees-critics-2022-3?amp
#bastionoffreespeech
And we already discussed in length when he banned 3 journalists for a week. He was making a point. They were dumb enough to play right into it when they started trumping the importance of free speech all over the internet
Pretty funny though how your free speech absolutist hero has such thin skin about people’s words.
Facebook, Google, et al
-
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Lol.
Which part of congress is twitter?
Which part of congress is twitter?
I only came to kick some ass...
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Rock the fucking house and kick some ass.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Cafeteria libertarianism is childish and exhausting.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
I'm waiting for you to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:02 pmDo you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about nowjfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 7:27 pmI’m waiting for the explanation you owe me, about how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:43 pm
Pretty much all this is him not liking insubordination from his employees. What boss tolerates that?
And we already discussed in length when he banned 3 journalists for a week. He was making a point. They were dumb enough to play right into it when they started trumping the importance of free speech all over the internet
Pretty funny though how your free speech absolutist hero has such thin skin about people’s words.
-
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Think for yourself. People were getting censored for speaking out against government regulations.jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:12 amI'm waiting for you to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:02 pmDo you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about now
That is a perfect example of the entire point of the 1st amendment.
-
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
You have to be a real dumbass to not see how the 1st amendment is applicable. But then again you did spend a day trying to argue that mandates never happened
- KUTradition
- Contributor
- Posts: 12734
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
#notverysmart
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
When my daughter doesn't know the answer to a question, but doesn't want to admit it, she says things like "it's a secret" or "I'm not telling!"randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:02 am You have to be a real dumbass to not see how the 1st amendment is applicable. But then again you did spend a day trying to argue that mandates never happened
She's four.
You have yet to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
While not bound by the constitution, obviously, I do think larger social platforms have a responsibility to be free speech/platform agnostic because of how important they have become to the fabric of communication.
This of course is a full both-sidesism as Musk is coming in, saying one thing ( hey, let's stop banning users ), and then doing the opposite ( banning users ).
randy, per usual, is getting all twisted in his own bullshit, because if the 1st Amendment is applicable here, that means the government would have to get involved and make mandates over what a social media platform can and cannot do when it comes to restricting users and what they post. But on the other hand, he wants the government out of social media.
What's a randy to do?
This of course is a full both-sidesism as Musk is coming in, saying one thing ( hey, let's stop banning users ), and then doing the opposite ( banning users ).
randy, per usual, is getting all twisted in his own bullshit, because if the 1st Amendment is applicable here, that means the government would have to get involved and make mandates over what a social media platform can and cannot do when it comes to restricting users and what they post. But on the other hand, he wants the government out of social media.
What's a randy to do?
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Correct - there is a fundamental (and unresolvable) incompatibility with randy's own (well, not his own) positions.pdub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 11:22 am While not bound by the constitution, obviously, I do think larger social platforms have a responsibility to be free speech/platform agnostic because of how important they have become to the fabric of communication.
This of course is a full both-sidesism as Musk is coming in, saying one thing ( hey, let's stop banning users ), and then doing the opposite ( banning users ).
randy, per usual, is getting all twisted in his own bullshit, because if the 1st Amendment is applicable here, that means the government would have to get involved and make mandates over what a social media platform can and cannot do when it comes to restricting users and what they post. But on the other hand, he wants the government out of social media.
What's a randy to do?
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
He's ( randy ) is right in that Twitter went overboard in one direction in terms of censorship before Elon took over.
Now they're just going overboard in another direction.
Now they're just going overboard in another direction.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't even be on the Basketball bored debating the relative worth of Dajuan Harris, if you aren't, like, aware of the existence of three point shots. Your position on basketball-related things is irrelevant to a conversation about basketball, where you do not understand the basic rules of the game.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
I'm still waiting.randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:01 amThink for yourself. People were getting censored for speaking out against government regulations.jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 9:12 amI'm waiting for you to describe how the First Amendment applies to Twitter.randylahey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:02 pm
Do you think free speech is literally only referring to words spoken aloud? Or what are you so confused about now
That is a perfect example of the entire point of the 1st amendment.
Describe the application of the First Amendment to Twitter.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
If you're arguing that he should be banned from the boreds for being a moran, I don't 100% ( probably even 51% ) agree.
If you're just arguing he's a moran, then I agree.
If you're just arguing he's a moran, then I agree.
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
No, I'm not at all saying he should be banned. I'm just saying that if you don't understand that some basketball shots are worth one point, some are worth two points and some are worth three points, you'd make for a very shitty basketball analyst.
-
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Theres another good example of the first amendment. If people are arguing to ban or silence me for having different opinions
-
- Posts: 8377
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 6:13 pm
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
Thats something you hear a lot of from the left. Trying to silence facts and opinions of others that don't align with theirs. So im not a bit surprised who that would be coming from
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
One minor issue, I don't work for our Legislature.randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:44 pmTheres another good example of the first amendment. If people are arguing to ban or silence me for having different opinions
Re: Facebook, Google, et al
See puddin ron and Disney.randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:45 pm Thats something you hear a lot of from the left. Trying to silence facts and opinions of others that don't align with theirs. So im not a bit surprised who that would be coming from
Broham