Kansas Crimson

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:44 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 12:41 pm 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.

Theres another good example of the first amendment. If people are arguing to ban or silence me for having different opinions

What this post is a good example of, is you not seeming to know at a most basic level what the First Amendment is, and what it is not.

So, stop skipping ahead to examples.

Describe the application of the First Amendment to Twitter. You still haven’t.

He's. Too. Stupid. To. Understand.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 1:12 pm

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

See puddin ron and Disney.

I agree. Desantis has gone way overboard. I initially liked him not going overboard with covid regulations.

But he seems more consumed with "winning" the culture war than anything else. And has pushed some of his measures to the extreme

American politics is too often about winning and gaining total control in the culture war. Too many politicians are no longer trying to find middle ground, instead just want to beat the other side into submission. Desantis has fallen into that culture war black hole too

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 2:44 pm He's. Too. Stupid. To. Understand.

I can say what I want here. The First Amendment says so.

Right?

Sure.
If you don’t mind flashing GIFs asking for money.
I forget if those are still there.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:05 pm Sure.
If you don’t mind flashing GIFs asking for money.
I forget if those are still there.

Now now, flashing GIFs would be an infringement on my absolute right to free speech.

Right?

What is absolute right to free speech?

Randy? Thoughts?

tmcats, can you post yet?

Free speech is critical to a free society. Where things got messy with Twitter was government officials and agencies were overseeing and influencing what speech was allowed and what wasn't. And both democrats and Republicans were guilty of this. Thats where the first amendment and Twitter get messy. Things we later found to be true were labeled "misinformation" and removed by social media companies

But you should always have the right to voice your opinion, just as others have the rights to disagree and voice theirs

Lemme help you down the path here.

The First Amendment covers the government’s ability to restrict speech.

The First Amendment does NOT cover a private company’s ability to restrict speech.

If you feel that the government should be entitled to direct how a private company restricts (or does not restrict) speech, then…well…you’re a crappy libertarian.

The government was telling a private sector how to restrict free speech

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:04 pm The government was telling a private sector how to restrict free speech

You didn't actually read the Twitter Files then

With that said, I do think the government's involvement there does get close to that line.

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:04 pm The government was telling a private sector how to restrict free speech

Interesting (to me). Until Fish hand fed you what it seems you may not have been comprehending, you hadn't made the post above.

Let me ask you and everyone else this....
I'm not saying this actually happened but I am asking IF.
IF there was Russian (or any "foreign") interference in the election (which could/might have been the determining factor in the outcome of the election), and false/lies (or at least unconfirmed) things were being posted on Twitter to influence voters and sway the election, are you cool with that AND feel "the government" shouldn't have been involved?
I'm not saying I am or am not.
What I will say/ask is if "we" are cool with it and feel "the government" shouldn't have been involved, then why do we have laws in THIS country that actually punish AMERICAN people for "free speech" when it can hurt others - and our country?

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:33 pm With that said, I do think the government's involvement there does get close to that line.

Agree.
But I don’t think they were controlling Twitter. More like annoying or even wink nudge threatening Twitter.

Members of the government are allowed on Twitter. And flag posts. And they are allowed to email Twitter. All allowed.

It’s kinda like if I warn a user here, which is rare, for saying something I think is borderline. That might stop them from continuing to post that way. Or it might not. Except the government has far far more consequence if they banned Twitter.

Meanwhile I think randy believes black suits were in Twitters headquarters with an earbud direct to Pelosi and the king Lizard Person.

probably not too far off, actually

he seems to be of the opinion that all speech should be protected in this country…no caveats or ifs, ands, or buts

kinda like his covid and gun arguments. he’s just not very smart, and seems unable to see anything beyond his own emotion and personal impact

randylahey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 19, 2023 10:04 pm The government was telling a private sector how to restrict free speech

Those are sure words, but I’m not sure they really form a coherent sentence, for purposes of this conversation.

The issue - which you should know (your handlers certainly know) - is that since Twitter itself is NOT subject to the First Amendment in the first place, the rube-baiting nonsense about Elon “restoring” free speech on Twitter is cut from the same vapid, buzzword-vomit cloth as your post. It doesn’t mean anything, even though it sounds like it should.

It’s a private site - subject to other laws, if Elon wants to exclusively allow far right shitposters, he can do that. Of course there’s not really any money in that, so he won’t. Instead he’ll bumbledick his way from self-created crisis to self-created crisis (without any consistency), because he himself doesn’t really understand Twitter. And he doesn’t really listen to anyone outside of the cafeteria libertarian universe you feel privileged to share with him.

I think there ARE interesting conversations to be had about how exactly social media SHOULD be regulated. Is social media a quasi-public “square,” such that it should be treated like quasi-public “places”? Or is it a private club, such that it should be treated like one? Something else entirely?

It’s complicated, and the laws covering it never really contemplated how things look on the ground now (not so unlike the Second Amendment, but that’s for another thread).

But what’s not complicated, is that at no time has Twitter been required, under the First Amendment, to protect or honor anyone’s right to “free speech.” That is evident in the fact that Elon has not landed in Constitution Prison for how he’s messed with the algorithms to promote some content and suppress other content. It’s probably bad for the public discourse at large, but it’s not illegal.

Another big day for Elon....

In a series of tweets, SpaceX said that it would learn from the test and that “success comes from what we learn”.

“As if the flight test was not exciting enough, Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation,” it said.

That definitely sounds exciting.