Amazon will remove Parler from their servers. Free speech is dying!

[TBayXXXVII 2,118]

Just now, peenie said:

A protest

LOL  GTFOH

[Thornton Melon 544]

2 minutes ago, peenie said:

You guys make me sick. I really enjoy some of your comments and value your experiences and point of view. But I have no desire to spend my free moments with crazy radicals. 
Goodbye!

 

1 minute ago, peenie said:

A protest

Starting............now

[TBayXXXVII 2,118]

2 minutes ago, peenie said:

You guys make me sick. I really enjoy some of your comments and value your experiences and point of view. But I have no desire to spend my free moments with crazy radicals. 
Goodbye!

See ya.  Take the other libturds with you.

[RLLD 3,455]

19 minutes ago, peenie said:

Notice how you don’t mind MAGA hat wearers or CEOs or off duty policeman or military vets writing about overthrowing the government and starting a revolution but you think Muslim groups discussing those same topics are clearly over the line. 
 

I’ve never been there, but apparently many of you have. From an article the author says that it’s a place where people go to:

specifically to share racist slurs and violent threats toward political opponents. On Parler, Nazi imagery flourishes, death threats abound, and conspiracy theories reign.

None of that is true in any way, amazing that you are this gullible.

[Big Guy 1,400]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

1. There are limits on free speech. The classic example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Inciting violence against an individual or group (or the US Government) is not protected by the first amendment.

2. The platforms being used for communication are private companies, not owned by the government. They are absolutely within their rights to block users per their site’s terms of service. Do you want the government to tell these companies what they can or cannot host? Should the government force them to give a voice to whomever wants to use their platform? Some people might recall a recent Supreme Court case in which a baker refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. He was allowed to refuse them service due to his opposition to their beliefs. Therefore, these social media platforms can also refuse service if they oppose the beliefs being espoused by their users.

I personally do not have any social media accounts. I think it’s silly that people think they are “silenced” because they can’t use FB or Twitter. There are many, many other ways to communicate, online and offline. If you don’t like what FB Twitter are doing, boycott them. They will suffer financially and might change their policies to accommodate you.

so at least 1 so far

I don't have time or energy to address this, sorry

[NorthernVike 2,080]

22 minutes ago, peenie said:

You guys make me sick. I really enjoy some of your comments and value your experiences and point of view. But I have no desire to spend my free moments with crazy radicals. 
Goodbye!

Thank you for leaving. 

[Bill E. 666]

5 hours ago, jonmx said:

ACLU Counsel Warns of 'Unchecked Power' of Twitter, Facebook After Trump Suspension
BY NATALIE COLAROSSI ON 1/09/21 AT 1:21 PM EST
SHARE
NEWS DONALD TRUMP ACLU TWITTER FACEBOOK

Newsweek subscription offers >
"President Trump can turn his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others – like many Black, Brown, and LGTBQ activists who have been censored by social media companies – will not have that luxury. It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparently to everyone.

 

How long before Comcast and Direct TV decide to remove Fox News from their subscriptions? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

Just now, Bill E. said:

How long before Comcast and Direct TV decide to remove Fox News from their subscriptions? 

CNN is pressuring them to do so already. 

[Cdub100 3,384]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

A protest

[posty 2,296]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

You guys make me sick. I really enjoy some of your comments and value your experiences and point of view. But I have no desire to spend my free moments with crazy radicals. 
Goodbye!

Once again an empty threat...

[tubby_mcgee 686]

21 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

CNN is pressuring them to do so already. 

At some point, if they keep pushing, a good guess is that CNN will be removed. Like, the actual broadcast locations.

If the capitol can be invaded and overran by a group of unarmed folks, imagine if...LOL....CNN.....LOL...Don Lemon....hiding under a desk....

[tubby_mcgee 686]

3 hours ago, peenie said:

See? See how easy it is for you to think one is bad and the other is not. 
You either believe in free speech or you don’t?

Watch the news.  Your BLM folks are the ones destroying things.  BLM'ers should be kicked the fock out of my country. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

3 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

At some point, if they keep pushing, a good guess is that CNN will be removed. Like, the actual broadcast locations.

If the capitol can be invaded and overran by a group of unarmed folks, imagine if...LOL....CNN.....LOL...Don Lemon....hiding under a desk....

They should have went to the Washington Post building instead of the capital building. No one would have cared. 

[RLLD 3,455]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They should have went to the Washington Post building instead of the capital building. No one would have cared. 

No, then they would pretend it was some attack on free speech/media etc.....they can make this sh!t up like its nothing, and they can turn around and defend their OWN actions which are the same......its startling......

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

10 minutes ago, RLLD said:

No, then they would pretend it was some attack on free speech/media etc.....they can make this sh!t up like its nothing, and they can turn around and defend their OWN actions which are the same......its startling......

It’s just a private business. Like all the rest that BLM/ Antifa wrecked this summer. I draw no distinction between Macy’s and The Media.  Both just sell shite. 

[Big Guy 1,400]

BREAKING :  Trump supporter banned from owning pigeons in case they try to communicate with one another.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

The entire POINT of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly is to prevent elites from banning political speech and communication.  Which is exactly what they are doing.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

1 hour ago, tubby_mcgee said:

At some point, if they keep pushing, a good guess is that CNN will be removed. Like, the actual broadcast locations.

If the capitol can be invaded and overran by a group of unarmed folks, imagine if...LOL....CNN.....LOL...Don Lemon....hiding under a desk....

Wouldn't matter.  We've seen protesters just go straight to the homes and apartments where these people live.  Maxine Waters begged people to confront them in public when they are out eating or shopping or whatever.  And if that doesn't work, they will probably start confronting and assaulting their friends and associates.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

I can no longer connect to rushlimbaugh.com

 

http://www.websitedown.info/rushlimbaugh.com

[Hawkeye21 1,855]

9 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

The entire POINT of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly is to prevent elites from banning political speech and communication.  Which is exactly what they are doing.

Are people allowed to write whatever they want in a newspaper?  We are free to say what we want on our own but we are not free to use private platforms that have terms of service to say whatever we want without consequences.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

Cumulus tells conservative talk-show hosts to shut it or get fired.

https://www.ajc.com/life/radiotvtalk-blog/cumulus-media-tells-its-conservative-talk-show-hosts-to-stop-talking-about-a-stolen-election/PE2VM6SQKBFBZBULQTFZLQUV7A/

[Rusty Syringes 478]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Are people allowed to write whatever they want in a newspaper?  We are free to say what we want on our own but we are not free to use private platforms that have terms of service to say whatever we want without consequences.

They most certainly are not. Can you imagine if a newspaper had to publish every nutball letter to the editor it got?

Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and other companies have every right to filter out those who abuse their platforms, particularly when the alt-righties are generating conspiracy theories and misinformation to the point where people feel compelled to attack the Capitol. 

 

[RLLD 3,455]

34 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

The entire POINT of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly is to prevent elites from banning political speech and communication.  Which is exactly what they are doing.

I think protections for speech was more to protect people from the government infringements.

The framers could not have envisioned the idea of social media companies, nor of private industry becoming more powerful than the government at infringement of rights.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Even crazy ass Angela Merkel thinks this is to far and is a very slippery slope.

Quote

 

LONDON — German Chancellor Angela Merkel blasted Twitter’s decision to ban U.S. President Donald Trump.

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance,” Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman, told reporters in Berlin on Monday, according to Reuters.

 

“Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”

Seibert said that, while Twitter was right to flag Trump’s inaccurate tweets about the 2020 U.S. election, banning his account altogether was a step too far.

 

How does it feel to be further left on the political spectrum then the current ACLU and Angela Merkel? 

 

[Strike 3,980]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

 

And Rusty cheers them on. 

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

[D.Rockchild 1]

5 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Even crazy ass Angela Merkel thinks this is to far and is a very slippery slope.

How does it feel to be far left on the political spectrum of the current ACLU and Angela Merkel? 

 

Quite an interesting take from Germany considering they outright ban Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial, etc. Seems a bit hypocritical to make that statement about free speech elsewhere in the world.

The free speech aspect of all this is a red herring. No ones free speech is being banned. People can still spew their well thought out and logical theories about how they are the true victims of the radical left and the colossal deep state.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Just now, D.Rockchild said:

Quite an interesting take from Germany considering they outright ban Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial, etc. Seems a bit hypocritical to make that statement about free speech elsewhere in the world.

The free speech aspect of all this is a red herring. No ones free speech is being banned. People can still spew their well thought out and logical theories about how they are the true victims of the radical left and the colossal deep state.

"The internet" is the new public square.  We are relativity new in this age of social media / internet and cannot treat big tech monopolies / oligopolies like the corner grocery store.   It's much more nuanced than that.  I get it, people hate Donald J. Trump, but don't let that TDS totally blind you to common sense and logical thinking.  

[D.Rockchild 1]

1 minute ago, KSB2424 said:

"The internet" is the new public square.  We are relativity new in this age of social media / internet and cannot treat big tech monopolies / oligopolies like the corner grocery store.   It's much more nuanced than that.  I get it, people hate Donald J. Trump, but don't let that TDS totally blind you to common sense and logical thinking.  

No one is banned from the internet though. I agree that there is nuance to all of this but there is a simplicity to it too. Parler would have had to agree to Terms of Service in order to be on AWS, Google Play, Apple Store etc. We may or may not agree to the terms of service but they are what they are. Different organizations choose to enforce or not enforce their terms of service all the time.

FBG's message board is much more strict on name calling, swearing, trolling,etc. than FFToday. It is what it is. Both choose to run their businesses as they seem fit.

[KSB2424 3,083]

1 minute ago, D.Rockchild said:

No one is banned from the internet though. I agree that there is nuance to all of this but there is a simplicity to it too. Parler would have had to agree to Terms of Service in order to be on AWS, Google Play, Apple Store etc. We may or may not agree to the terms of service but they are what they are. Different organizations choose to enforce or not enforce their terms of service all the time.

FBG's message board is much more strict on name calling, swearing, trolling,etc. than FFToday. It is what it is. Both choose to run their businesses as they seem fit.

A main issue is these platforms are few and far between (aka an oligopoly).   First they say, you don't like twitter then make your own.  So they made Parler.  Then the two big tech companies who control 90+ percent of the market converge.  It is more nuanced and requires critical thinking opposed to political posturing.  For heavens sake Facebook took down Ron Freakin' Paul's Facebook page today.  This is going way past Trump but people hate him so much they are making excuses and cannot see the forest for the trees.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,660]

Libtards siding with oligarchs. Cant make it up. 

[Cdub100 3,384]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Are people allowed to write whatever they want in a newspaper?  We are free to say what we want on our own but we are not free to use private platforms that have terms of service to say whatever we want without consequences.

A newspaper isn't a platform. I've already explained this to you.

Those "private" platforms are excatly that PLATFORMS. By using their TOS they are no longer platforms. Instead they become publishers and should lose section 230 protection.

 

 

[KSB2424 3,083]

Just now, Cdub100 said:

A newspaper isn't a platform. I've already explained this to you.

Those "private" platforms are excatly that PLATFORMS. By using their TOS they are no longer platforms. Instead they become publishers and should lose section 230 protection.

 

 

People fail to understand the difference between the two.

[Cdub100 3,384]

7 minutes ago, D.Rockchild said:

No one is banned from the internet though. I agree that there is nuance to all of this but there is a simplicity to it too. Parler would have had to agree to Terms of Service in order to be on AWS, Google Play, Apple Store etc. We may or may not agree to the terms of service but they are what they are. Different organizations choose to enforce or not enforce their terms of service all the time.

FBG's message board is much more strict on name calling, swearing, trolling,etc. than FFToday. It is what it is. Both choose to run their businesses as they seem fit.

You're new here and obviously don't understand the difference between a pop platform and a publisher. The protections offered under section 230 and why it's important. Go do some research.

[supermike80 1,287]

1 hour ago, Rusty Syringes said:

They most certainly are not. Can you imagine if a newspaper had to publish every nutball letter to the editor it got?

Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and other companies have every right to filter out those who abuse their platforms, particularly when the alt-righties are generating conspiracy theories and misinformation to the point where people feel compelled to attack the Capitol. 

 

As much as I dont like it i agree.   Fb Twitter etc is under no obligation to allow any content.  Least not under today's laws

[Strike 3,980]

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

As much as I dont like it i agree.   Fb Twitter etc is under no obligation to allow any content.  Least not under today's laws

Actually they are.  Section 230. 

[D.Rockchild 1]

Just now, Cdub100 said:

You're new here and obviously don't understand the difference between a pop platform and a publisher. The protections offered under section 230 and why it's important. Go do some research.

Seems to me that they are all within their right to limit or ban as they see fit under Section 230. I'm sure if this is incorrect then Parler will have no problem winning a lawsuit and forcing AWS to allow them to be carried on their platform.

[KSB2424 3,083]

1 minute ago, D.Rockchild said:

Seems to me that they are all within their right to limit or ban as they see fit under Section 230. I'm sure if this is incorrect then Parler will have no problem winning a lawsuit and forcing AWS to allow them to be carried on their platform.

Welp, here we go:

https://www.businessinsider.com/parler-sues-amazon-claiming-it-violated-antitrust-laws-2021-1

 

[supermike80 1,287]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Actually they are.  Section 230. 

This section 230??  What am I reading wrong?

Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.