Senile Biden WH directed Big Tech to censor Tucker Carlson

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by rmg_35

That's laughable 😃

No that is factual. Just because you do not like the news sources because they are not DNC mouthpieces or far left pieces of trash, they are ALL legitimate news sites

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Whether there was or wasn't is still part of an ongoing debate, which even you have to admit.

If I accept your premise AND you believe that, then Tucker and the scientists had every right to say what they did and censoring them was wrong. Which even you have to admit

That is the whole point. Senile Biden and his lackeys censored journalists and trampled the first amendment rights of Americans including physicians and other experts. And you and others are making excuses for it

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by Devo

It has exactly ZERO to do with whether Tucker or any of the scientists were wrong, or correct, in EITHER case, they all have the right to say it.

That IS, the bottom line.

Fucking problem with the left is how are we going to take away every right they don't like by killing it piece by piece.

Take gun control, its a perfect example, ban a pistol today because its too small, cheap, and easy to conceal,(Saturday night specials), then, because its too powerful, holds too many rounds, and is not concealable at all(Assault weapons).

Now, they are playing loose with the first amendment, which is clear, the GOVERNMENT cannot censor or ATTEMPT to censor your freedom of speech.

Nor, can they go to a private company, and have THEM censor your speech for them, there is NO leeway in that, its not permissable if you are wrong, or, if they don't like what you say, or, they think what you are saying would make them look bad, its not allowable ever, PERIOD.

Quit splitting hairs that have nothing to do with shit, when the only thing that matters is the the Goverment did both censor and attempt to censor private citizens, public figures and news outlets.

100% correct

The fact that we have people here applauding this and supporting this is utterly disgusting and completely un-American and tells you how brainwashed people on the left have become

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

There are PLENTY of ppl on this board that either never heard of yelling fire in a theater, or don't believe that it's illegal.

That is 100% a false equivalence

No one yelled fire in a theater. Medical experts and respected journalists provided opinions and data that differed from the government. And they were illegally censored, their first amendment rights trampled.

Anyone who supports this is not only un-American but a traitor to the country. Censorship is what Communist China or Russia would do

[Devo]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is legal.

https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-yo...ded%20theatre.

And from an attorney.

https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog...owded-theater/

So, the idea that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, Justice Holmes was using that as an analogy to simply say that free speech can’t go completely unchecked. And that idea has maintained it’s truth throughout the years. That’s still true. There are limitations on what is considered protected speech and what is not considered protected speech, and that’s a topic for a different video. But it’s just always been interesting to me that this quote, which is just dicta, it’s not the holding of the case, it’s not really the law of the land, and it’s not Justice Holmes saying that’s what the law of the land should be, has somehow withstood the test of time and is still, to this day, if you watch news reports on First Amendment issues, or you read newspaper articles on First Amendment issues, you’ll invariably run into somebody that talks about, “Well, we all know you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” That’s not the law. It really never has been the law. And it’s from a case that got overturned some 60 plus years ago.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by berryberry

If I accept your premise AND you believe that

So you do understand sunk premise after all

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

So you do understand

So you do understand that Tucker and the scientists had every right to say what they did and censoring them was wrong and a violation of their first amendment rights.

[HDGristle]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Let's see the full evidence.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Let's see the full evidence.

Evidence of what?

Their speech was suppressed at the hand of the government, what more do you need to know?

The 1st doesn't say anything about correct speech.

[Devo]

What is this disconnect from reality that you all believe that someone needs to prove what they believe is true?

If I want to stand on a box and talk about how sad it is that dinosaurs are dying by falling off the edges of our flat earth, I have that right, as do you, nowhere do you need to prove what you say is true.

[Devo]

Remember when Kali was going to start prosecuting doctors for telling their patients incorrect info about the Covid shots?

The state was going to define what was the truth that they allowed.

And you wonder why it was a dismal failure to even seriously consider such a law.

OR, how do you explain the Devil worshipping statues at state or county capitols, when the believer sue for the same rights as any other religion to have their speech to be free.

And, on the other hand, where you have the same types of institutions that remove anyones right to speech, rather than have all speech be open, by removing the other religious items?

In either case, they show clearly the government just cannot regulate speech, unless its a freedom for all, or none.

The line is not movable, you have freedom of speech, or you don't.

[HDGristle]

Originally Posted by Devo

Evidence of what?

Their speech was suppressed at the hand of the government, what more do you need to know?

The 1st doesn't say anything about correct speech.

We have one part of this. I want the whole picture, or as much of it that can be found through discovery or additional investigation.

I know how this part was obtained. Show us the rest. Not just an article published by the Daily Caller with a portion of what was turned over to those AG's. All of it that can be released. If someone who feels they were directly harmed and their rights were violated wants additional discovery, they should sue.

Let's get to the bottom of it and see the full preponderance of evidence.

[berryberry]

Originally Posted by HDGristle

We have one part of this. I want the whole picture, or as much of it that can be found through discovery or additional investigation.

If someone who feels they were directly harmed and their rights were violated wants additional discovery, they should sue.

We have all the evidence we need. Tucker or the doctors and other Americans who were illegally censored by the Senile Biden administration don't need to sue to prove it

The Attorney Generals who sued the Senile Biden administration in federal court have already shown that members of the administration colluded with social media companies to suppress debate on the COVID-19 pandemic and other issues.

[berryberry]

Journalist Michael Shellenberger: Many think social media companies only censored "vaccine misinformation." But a recently-released email shows Facebook reassuring the White House that they were censoring "often-true content” that "does not contain actionable misinformation" but was "discouraging vaccines."

[HDGristle]

Don't know who "we" refers to here. You have the evidence you need. I don't. I'm sure others don't.

I'm looking for a law, rule, a specific threat and/or a clear case of coercion in which Twitter was forced to censor by the federal government and didn't choosento censor of its own accord. That's key, because Twitter is not a government actor. Show me the actual case.

I'm looking for the rationale behind any requests or the context of the discussions. I'd like to see the full context. I'd like to see if there's additional correspondence, meeting notes or even potential testimony regarding the conversations. I'd like to see this run to ground as fully as possible.

Why don't you?