Lieu: ‘I Would Love to Be Able to Regulate the Content of Speech’ but First Amendment Stops Me

Yeah, your whataboutism is noted.

 

That's called back tracking after the fact. He, personally would restrict your speech if not for the constitution. He doesn't think the "government" should in the "long run".

 

It isn't "backtracking" when it was part of the original statement.

 

Yes it can. Or maybe its a CYA. His initial statement was the he, personally would restrict your speech if not for the constitution. The second part is a complete contradiction to the original thought he had and let slip out. Like when a kid is trying to tell a lie, you catch them in the crack of their lie and they try to back track cause they know they just done F' up with a sentence admitting their guilt. I see his entire statement, but the last part was cause he knew he just let slip his totalitarian tendencies and know he would act upon them IF the law wasn't in his way. He is the reason for our constitution and bill of rights, they are there to restrict the government, not the people.

 

That is a fallacy of false equivalency.

 

It's a hasty generalization until you can give and substantiate numbers. You can't. And the Republican Party is a big government Progressive party and has been since the 1950s.

 

You don't 'logic' well. The statement involves one Congressman, not a bunch of them. You see the left beating down an Alt Right conservative insurgency that wants to shut down free speech in America.

 

Well, they've been that way since 1860's when they enslaved every immigrant coming off a boat to go fight a war to prevent their southern farmers from leaving the union. The GOP unconstitutionally levied taxes on incomes as well.

 

LOL, what is an "Alt-right conservative"? All of Spencer's people are socialist.

 

In a very twisted and warped way, I get what the fool Lieu is trying to say.

However, the slippery slope of unintended consequences always gets lost on Progressives.

It would be great if lies and distortions, hate, etc., that gets traction among the people such things are created for could be limited. But how does that get accomplished? Who decides? Should Google algorithms be applied?

Recognizing how dangerous such a path would be, how could an elected official like Lieu even voice such an opinion?

Call it insight into how Progressives think, and what they would do if they had the power to do so. Certainly adds to the evidence of a totalitarian mindset that if given the chance, would demand only approved speech be allowed, or consequences would ensue for the perpetrator.

 

What a sad but expected mis characterization of the FULL context of what he actually said.......here is is if any Trump sycophant wants to read the FULL comment with CONTEXT.......per the norm, the link and the OP have cherry picked and omitted the ENTIRE comment and misrepresented it:

"It's a very good point you make," Lieu said. "I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don't get that opportunity. However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech."

 

wildjoker cannot support the hasty generalization. He just gives more generalizations without proof. And he does not understand that the GOP is a progressive party of the 21st century. And he has no idea what is a socialist.

 

Yep, no surprise here:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe the wooden horse is an offering to the goddess Athena]." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe blacks are Kenites the descendants of Cain and the mark is upon them].” (Obama)

 

Try actually listening to what he said. There's no reason to panic if you actually listen to what he said instead of the-sky-is-falling paranoia. Literally his entire point was that the First Amendment protects speech against personal biases, including his own, and that this is a good thing

 

LOL

Why did you leave this part out:

"He added he would urge private companies to regulate their platforms more themselves but repeated the government shouldn't play that role."
​

So, let companies like Google, Facebook, etc., impede free speech, but not the government.

Just another Progressive pushing to censor speech from non-approved humans.

And the beat goes on......

 

Its right there. If said HE WOULD if he could. But because LAWS prevent him, he can't. Its very simple what he's saying. If not for govt, he would limit speech he doesn't agree with. Its right there in B&W.

 

Oh that he tried to walk it back? Yea were it not for that pesky old Constitution. ............

 

Why the hyperbole? His entire point was that he would like to do so but the Constitution stands in his way. Amazing the journalist sat there and didn't even flinch.

 

"Conservatives" who think that private companies having control over their private property is a violation of free speech understand neither private property nor free speech.

 

And your statement is almost true! Just add "and he believes this is a good thing" to the end you'll actually have an honest representation of this statement! So close.

 

He literally says it in the same sentence. It wasn't a "walk back." It was the conclusion of a thought. Functional literacy > paranoia.

 

LOL

An interesting take for someone who aligns with a cause that believes a business can't chose who to do business with.

Perhaps you would support a coalition of all media companies supporting the censorship of anyone who fails to meet certain standards of thought and idea.

Would you go for that?

 

Companies have control over free speech. That's the law. That ocean515 does not like that does not matter.

 

It was your attempt to make one not me.

 

It isn't a "take." It is just a basic knowledge of the principles of private property and free speech. The First Amendment does not mean that you can force a business or other private entity to publish your views for you.

Yes, yes, I know. Conservatives around don't grokk libertarianism and it confuses them. No, I align with a cause that believes businesses should be able to choose who to do business with.

There's this thing called the market that has solutions for stuff like that. This "coalition" would only be able to censor on their own platform . . . you do realize you are currently on a platform that has rules regarding what kind of communication it will publish and what kind it won't, yes? Anyway, I would support the right of those private companies to choose what they will publish and what they won't. Anyone who wouldn't support that right doesn't actually believe in the First Amendment. I would support their right but not their decision, just as I support the right to free speech but I do not support each and every view expressed with said speech, same as you and same as Lieu. But if media companies did form such a coalition and there was demand for the sort of views that they were refusing to publish, it would be easy for a competitor to enter and provide that service.