Welcome to Communist China and our Bug Tech overlords

[NeilArmstrong839125]

Originally Posted by berryberry

I don't care if you hate Trump or not, but the mass silencing of opposition voices is something that is straight from the Third Reich. Our founding fathers would be shocked to see what has happened to this country.

So you're all for free speech and against silencing of opposition voices? Okay... then you must be just as upset and angry that the NFL fired Colin Kaepernick to silence him when he was doing nothing more than expressing himself peacefully? Right? There's a perfect example of someone exercising his right to free speech (you claim to be all about free speech) and being silenced. Or is it only white supremacist, fascist, far right extremist voices that you care about? You know what... don't answer that. We all know what your answer is.

[jmichael]

Originally Posted by berryberry

Stay on topic please - this thread is about censorship and free speech.

Do you support one side censoring speech, one side being the arbiter of what's news and the mass silencing of opposition voices?

Do you actual think you have free speech, do you think you can say anything you want?

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by NeilArmstrong839125

So you're all for free speech and against silencing of opposition voices? Okay... then you must be just as upset and angry that the NFL fired Colin Kaepernick to silence him when he was doing nothing more than expressing himself peacefully? Right? There's a perfect example of someone exercising his right to free speech (you claim to be all about free speech) and being silenced. Or is it only white supremacist, fascist, far right extremist voices that you care about? You know what... don't answer that. We all know what your answer is.

terrible example........ colin is employed by his team and was on the job when voicing his opinion.... what would your boss do if you were at work and was voicing your opinions which he may or may not agree with

i think in this situation, the laws on free speech are not the same, I might be wrong, havent really checked

[IMGTH58]

Freedom on speech, as defined in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech,” but there are limitations. Freedom of speech does not have to extend to private entities.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...rces/what-does

Also, note this exception:
Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

[NeilArmstrong839125]

Originally Posted by chizzy

terrible example........ colin is employed by his team and was on the job when voicing his opinion.... what would your boss do if you were at work and was voicing your opinions which he may or may not agree with

i think in this situation, the laws on free speech are not the same, I might be wrong, havent really checked

Thank you for making my point for me and agreeing with me. I drew a straight line equivalency to what he was saying. And you agreed that he only cares about white supremacist voices.

Parler is not the government. The NFL is not the government. So are we really talking about free speech here? Or is the Berry man just upset because people inciting riots and murder on platfroms like Parler are being held accountable for these statements?

So back to your "terrible example" statement. You are wrong Chizzy because I brought up a similar example that did not involve the government. I used it to point out the hypocrisy of his argument. He only cares about white voices being silenced. That's it. He knows it, and so do you.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by bypass

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you really don’t understand what people are saying. Actually that what I wrote was all about, censorship. Now I understand why you keep writing the same dumb things over and over with your pictures. You have never ever stayed on topic and I see you tell everyone who don’t agree with you the same thing “stay on topic”. That is what my whole paragraphs was about. Why they had to block him. It was all about censorship. I think you either are illiterate or you are just trying to see what kind of reaction you can get out of everyone. I hope it’s the latter. I know how smart Trump was in giving speeches. I have seen 10th graders give better speeches. I guess you can understand better what he is trying to say better than most of us. You actually don’t get it and if they don’t say what you want them to say you are going to tell the teacher and have them blocked. WOW.

You posted a long winded post mainly about Trump. This thread was not about Twitter banning Trump (silly as that is seeing how they allow terrorists like the Ayatollah Khomeini to post there. The topic is censorship and free speech. It is about

* CNN is trying to force Fox News off air.
* Twitter deletes people who have opinions different than theirs.
* Apple, Google and Amazon have deleted a free speech platform - Parler.
* Biden and Democrats in charge are cheering it on.

try to pay attention please

Do you want to live in a world where tech companies can decide what speech you are allowed to see? Do you want to live in a world which has the mass silencing of opposition voices?

If so, you would have fit in well with Hitler and the Third Reich. If not, then you better wake up and see what is happening in the USA. It is chilling

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by NeilArmstrong839125

Here's what you seem to not understand... lawful speech. Posting on Parler to encourage riots and executions of public servants... that's not lawful speech. According to you, it's okay to walk into a crowded movie theatre and yell "fire" and incite a riot. Guess what there genius, you're not allowed to do that. Cry all your fake tears about one side censoring the other side. That's not what is happening and you know it. Your complaint is disingenuous. Go complain on Parler, OAN, Newsmax... those kinds of echo chambers that give you that happy feeling. Those of us who live in reality prefer that riots and executions not be encouraged by white nationalist right wing extremist groups. It is dangerous and you know it. But you seem to not care.

Constitution of United States of America

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

All summer BLM idiots and Antifa morons posted on Twitter encouraging riots and killing police officers. Those accounts still exist on Twitter and still post. And no Big Tech companies conspired to shut Twitter down. So stop the charade about lawful speech. The speech on Parler was just as lawful as that on Twitter. In fact I would posit that on either platform 99.99% of the speech posted there is lawful. You will have idiots on both . But that is not a reason to have Google, Apple and Amazon conspire to kill one and ignore the other. The only reason Bog Tech did so was to silence opposition - just like Hitler did and just like Communist China does. Sad you can not see that - or perhaps you are fine and look the other way when leftwing extremist groups cause riots and kill people.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by NeilArmstrong839125

So you're all for free speech and against silencing of opposition voices? Okay... then you must be just as upset and angry that the NFL fired Colin Kaepernick to silence him when he was doing nothing more than expressing himself peacefully? Right? There's a perfect example of someone exercising his right to free speech (you claim to be all about free speech) and being silenced. Or is it only white supremacist, fascist, far right extremist voices that you care about? You know what... don't answer that. We all know what your answer is.

The NFL did not fire Kaepernick. He was employed by the the 49ers, not the NFL. His last year he sucked, going 1-10. After the season, the 49ers hired a new coach who planned to run a different offense and did not believe that Kaepernick fit the scheme. Kaepernick chose to opt out of his contract and became a free agent.

No one fired him for expressing himself. He wasn't fired.
He sucked his final season and chose to opt out of his contract.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by IMGTH58

Freedom on speech, as defined in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech,” but there are limitations. Freedom of speech does not have to extend to private entities.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...rces/what-does

Also, note this exception:
Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
  Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

That is correct. But we are not talking about actions that would harm others when:

* CNN is trying to force Fox News off air.
* Twitter deletes a large number of prominent conservatives who have opinions different than theirs.
* Apple, Google and Amazon deleting a free speech platform - Parler.

Do you support such blatant censorship for no cause. Do you want to live in a world where tech companies can decide what speech you are allowed to see? Do you want to live in a world which has the mass silencing of opposition voices?

[Purrito]

The most leftist Communist organization of all, the PGA, just pulled their 2022 championship from Trump's NJ course.

Oh, when will this communist assault on our freedoms end.?

[Dreamgurrl]

Evidently scaremongering is acceptable so long as Berry is the Monger in chief.

[anmar85]

I'll bite I guess, but I want to note that I'm sticking strictly to the originally stated bullet points, so I probably won't be paying too much mind to "Well what about..." in reference to any peoples or actions outside of the originally stated bullet points.


- CNN is trying to force Fox News off air
Maybe I'm missing something because I don't really follow the goings on of cable news networks very much, but after a quick-ish Google search I only really found Tucker Carlson ranting on about how a person at CNN published an opinion piece that Fox News should be pulled by cable providers. Maybe they actually contacted cable providers? I still don't really see what the censorship issue is here though. I am willing to admit that it's kind of underhanded to see what's going on with digital platforms and then try to apply that to a competitor's television network, but big business is going to do what big business does.


- Twitter deletes a large number of prominent conservatives who have opinions different than theirs.
Twitter removed accounts that they decided broke their TOS. Just like any website that acts as a public forum they have a set of rules that all participants agree to when signing up. If they feel that someone is in breach of those rules, then they are free to suspend access. In this case they were suspending access to accounts that were spreading misinformation about election results in reaction to that not only being against their policies on misinformation, but also as we've seen it was being used to incite violence. Twitter does not have the power to prevent people from spreading that misinformation, but they are well within their rights to prevent people from spreading it on their platform.


- Apple, Google and Amazon deleting a free speech platform - Parler.
"Free Speech" Platform is a stretch. First off companies don't grant us our free speech, the government does. Also, it's a pretty big stretch to pretend like no one has ever been banned from Parler. For the meat of that bullet point though, I would mostly just parrot what I said in the previous one. All listed services have a TOS that users have to agree to, Parler broke those TOS by not having better moderation in place to prevent dangerous language, Parler got booted. Mind you, there is nothing that prevents Parler from existing by booting them off of AWS. Parler is more than welcome and able to host and maintain their own web servers, and AWS even retains all data for a time to make the migration process as simple as possible. If you are going to rely on someone else for all of your access and infrastructure though, then you are going to be handcuffed to their rules. That's just the way it is. If you want to set the rules, then do it yourself.


Now where do I personally stand? (Let's be honest, someone will probably ask) I think large tech companies like Amazon and Facebook need to be broken up regardless. They are dangerous monopolies for a lot of reasons, I just don't see this as one of them. I don't see this as a constitutional issue unless the Government passed regulations that mandated that these things happened, which as far as I'm aware did not happen. I don't think that pulling the protections that social platforms are granted by the government would help anything, and in fact would lead to many more people being pulled from those platforms. Though I do think that there is a great deal of influence in a powerful social presence and we need to think of ways of mitigating that, because in the wrong hands it can lead to dangerous situations.

[El-mo]

In the real world...the one that exists outside the mind of right-wing nut jobs, no company in communist China would ever have the right to expel a government leader. Conservatives love the free market until the free market rejects their bullshit.

[Jacuzzme]

Sure thing, Adolf.

[chizzy]

Originally Posted by NeilArmstrong839125

Thank you for making my point for me and agreeing with me. I drew a straight line equivalency to what he was saying. And you agreed that he only cares about white supremacist voices.

Parler is not the government. The NFL is not the government. So are we really talking about free speech here? Or is the Berry man just upset because people inciting riots and murder on platfroms like Parler are being held accountable for these statements?

So back to your "terrible example" statement. You are wrong Chizzy because I brought up a similar example that did not involve the government. I used it to point out the hypocrisy of his argument. He only cares about white voices being silenced. That's it. He knows it, and so do you.

My point was only the example you gave. And that was you cannot voice out your opinions while on the job for your employer.
Maybe I'm mis reading your reply and if I am, let me know and I will apologize but if you were suggesting I only care about white supremacists voices, that is incorrect and deserves a big fuck you for making that assumption. Again if that wasnt your intent, I apologize.

I will say everyone, left or right should be concerned when companies like twitter,apple and google can or will eliminate opposing views.
So.eone brought up that since march trump had almost 600 tweets removed from Twitter because they were deemed lies or misinformation? Biden,harris and shummer had 0? Does anyone here honestly think none of those 3 had misinformation in any tweets? Come on
Does anyone here think that fox should be eliminated? Seriously? The media is a seriously huge force everywhere and whether you are left or right, all sides of subjects need to be heard. If you dont agree with that, shame on you. You are already doomed.i hate cnn but I would fight for their right to express their left leaning opinions as well as fight for fox to do the same