• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bullshit Fox News Says

at least he doesn't wear that stupid fucking bow tie anymore
 
I have never watched one minute of Tucker so I have no idea of his history or motives in the above clip. (The only Fox Show I started watching this past year is the "Five" and I'm just about done with Greg and Jesse's bullshit.) With that said, I must say that government censorship is a concern to me. If a Group (Proud Boys, i.e) is a terrorist Organization let's label them that and condemn and ostracize them accordingly. As loonie I think Q is, and as pissed as right wingers (like left wingers) make me; as long as they are not being or inciting violence in any form, I for one will defend their right to say what they have to say. I know my choice of ignoring things (Dump) in the past has bitten me in the ass. And I recognize the challenges of allowing their voices flooding social media and influencing others.
But banning their ability to do so is not acceptable to me.
 
the government hasn't done anything to ban anyone on social media. those are private companies banning other companies for not abiding by the terms they agreed to. free market and such.
 
the banning on twitter and facebook has nothing to do with the government. it is a private platform that is simply weeding out those that continuously call "fire" in a crowed theater with their nonsensical conspiracies. they have every right to do so, as a private company..."no shirt, no shoes, no service!" or as the Republicans fought for "if you are gay, we don't have to bake you a cake". the companies jumping ship is capitalism, as they don't want to have their products associated with these disgusting people. also very legal and not really part of a "woke" or 'cancel culture". those catch phrases are just from terrible people trying to put an anti progressive spin to why nobody wants to support them by giving them money to continue their terrible ways. also capitalism and totally legal.

fuck them
 
Agreed; And I understand the thought these are private companies and can "ban" those who they choose.
But if "you are gay and we don't have to bake you a cake" is wrong" (which I believe it is) is it equally wrong that media that serve the public such as Facebook and Twitter not do the same unless the criteria of "inciting violence" is crossed? Not sure I see the difference.
I just think that censorship, whether by the government or any business that serves the public is wrong and a slippery slope. Unlike a private company outside a public media outlet who chooses not to "support" causes and beliefs they do not wish to associate themselves with, which is within their right.
 
Last edited:
BarcaDeac said:
the government hasn't done anything to ban anyone on social media. those are private companies banning other companies for not abiding by the terms they agreed to. free market and such.
Click to expand...

warak said:
the banning on twitter and facebook has nothing to do with the government. it is a private platform that is simply weeding out those that continuously call "fire" in a crowed theater with their nonsensical conspiracies. they have every right to do so, as a private company..."no shirt, no shoes, no service!" or as the Republicans fought for "if you are gay, we don't have to bake you a cake". the companies jumping ship is capitalism, as they don't want to have their products associated with these disgusting people. also very legal and not really part of a "woke" or 'cancel culture". those catch phrases are just from terrible people trying to put an anti progressive spin to why nobody wants to support them by giving them money to continue their terrible ways. also capitalism and totally legal.

fuck them
Click to expand...

Courts have uniformly held that social media platforms are not governmental actors. There is an argument, however, that the immunities conferred by Section 230 of the CDA--which, among other things, allow social media platforms to regulate what the government could not--could make social media platforms governmental actors for purposes of the First Amendment when they regulate speech.

I haven't studied the issue, and I don't know what I think about yet, so, "offered without comment."
 
Last edited:
DeacsPop said:
Agreed; And I understand the thought these are private companies and can "ban" those who they choose.
But if "you are gay and we don't have to bake you a cake" is wrong" (which I believe it is) is it equally wrong that media that serve the public such as Facebook and Twitter not do the same unless the criteria of "inciting violence" is crossed? Not sure I see the difference.
I just think that censorship, whether by the government or any business that serves the public is wrong and a slippery slope. Unlike a private company outside a public media outlet who chooses not to "support" causes and beliefs they do not wish to associate themselves with, which is within their right.
Click to expand...

You don’t think the idea that Democrats are satanic pedophiles is the same thing as inciting violence against those same Democrats? What would any right thinking person do to a satanic pedophile?
 
well, i don't believe that Facebook and Twitter was ever created to serve the public. it was a platform to communicate with family and friends and got manipulated by political rhetoric and ads. it should never have allowed politics onto it's platform to be honest, but i bet the money was just too good.

the cake thing was just about putting into Republicans faces, I don't agree with that sort of bigotry, but there are many companies that have stipulations for use. Planet Fitness gyms say that if you belittle or discriminate another person you will lose your membership...maybe that is closer to a similar thing.
 
WakeBored said:
lol no dude that's not even close
Click to expand...


ok, how about Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress?

that seems like inciting violence...
 
WakeBored said:
Yeah, that's not the argument
Click to expand...

it's the argument i was responding to...it is a private company that can ban anyone they want.

it's not a 1st amendment issue. outside of the government, anything you say can 100% be used against you in your occupation, where you live, your church, who your friend are, in every other circumstance.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
You don’t think the idea that Democrats are satanic pedophiles is the same thing as inciting violence against those same Democrats? What would any right thinking person do to a satanic pedophile?
Click to expand...

That categorization is warped by any definition and likely libelous, but no, not the same thing as inciting violence.
 
Definitely has the potential to cause real world harm. So I have no problem with private companies getting that crap off of their sites
 
WakeBored said:
The fact that there is a difference highlights the governmental actor argument.
Click to expand...

Right, I was responding to DeacsPop who wasn’t making the governmental actor argument. He said the private companies should keep stuff up unless it incited violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top