Censorship

chiefjason said:
What a lot of you are forgetting with the rights vs private business argument is that everyone signed and agreed to a contract. Both parties have requirement. And there are legal consequences for not honoring them. I think it's a 1A issue, but it's also a business contract/law issue. And in the case of parler, if there was a conspiracy between these companies they might be able to get to some criminal issues.
Click to expand...

Another thing to note:

While the First Amendment is a proscription against the GOVERNMENT with respect to Freedom of Speech and not private citizens or companies, when private citizens and companies become proxies of the government by bowing to government coercion to do so, then it BECOMES a First Amendment issue.

Consider the Congressional Inquisition with Zuckerberg. You can bet that Zuckerberg/Facebook, and every other other major social media site out there stood up and took notice when Congress flat out told Zuckerberg "you will fix this or we will fix it for you".

If that was not a clear threat, I don't know what is.

And any private company which bows to such threats becomes a defacto representative of the government...which MAKES this a First Amendment issue.
 
CZfool68 said:
Ok, I’ll keep it short.

McCarthy was correct.
Click to expand...
What? That he was correct that there were communist in government? Of course there were. Just as we had folks in other countries governments. But that does not mean you get to just ignore the bill of rights to hunt them.

50 years now, will some fringe group look back and say "You know, the democrats were right to purge the conservatives voice."?

When either side has too much power, the people lose. EITHER SIDE! That's why the FF tried to set up a government of checks and balances. But when either side get a little more pull, they chip away those checks and balances.
 
HMP said:
I would hope not. And if it were, I would hope everyone would turn on a President for saying that he planned to remain in office 'indefinitely'
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t want him to remain indefinitely, but I wouldn’t mind if he were to use the military to round up communists, corrupt democrat scum, and a whole host of swamp creatures masquerading as bureaucratic employees and hauled them off, held tribunals for all the election fraud and other violations, and executed them.
 
mj1angier said:
When either side has too much power, the people lose. EITHER SIDE! That's why the FF tried to set up a government of checks and balances. But when either side get a little more pull, they chip away those checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Almost a direct quote from my own father, way back in the 70s when I was in Junior High.

His view was, regardless of your political stand when one party holds power too long, the people end up paying badly for it.

The parties HAVE to swing back and forth, with conflict between them
 
noway2 said:
I wouldn’t want him to remain indefinitely, but I wouldn’t mind if he were to use the military to round up communists, corrupt democrat scum, and a whole host of swamp creatures masquerading as bureaucratic employees and hauled them off, held tribunals for all the election fraud and other violations, and executed them.
Click to expand...
This is the way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom