Democrats Call For FBI Probe Of Parler, Censorship Of Conservatives Reaching CRIMINAL Level

To those that claimed you could still get to Parler and use it what say you now? It's down. Has been since Amazon booted them. And Dems/leftists are trying to make sure it stays down.

 

A thought they had agreed a Russian company was going to host them???

 

A direct assault on our Constitutional rights. Not only do they want to restrict our free speech, they want to restrict our free thought.

 

And if they had or do? (I don't know either way as I haven't heard such) Don't you find it pretty ironic that Russia would host them? A country that is against freedom of speech? While the USA, who claims to be all about free speech as part of its ideology, as being part of its foundational principles has people on the left doing everything that they can to get them banned and unable to operate?

Btw, weren't you one of the ones that kept linking to Parler before it was shut down and trying to claim that since you could get to it they weren't being censored? What say you now?

 

Based on Dirty Donald's strong alliance with his butt buddy Putin.

 

Trump was harder on Russia than Obama.

 

Nothing is stopping the owners of Parler from buying their own servers.

 

You know, Antifa was using Parler also, right?

 

Are you claiming that it is all right to target one particular group with censorship?

 

Depends on who's doing the censorship.

 

Why? I am surprised that anyone thinks this is acceptable regardless of what party they support.

 

You're forgetting Antifa used Parler also.

 

The state may not engage in censorship. Amazon, et al is not the state. This should be obvious on its face.

 

Does that make it acceptable? You are willingly letting an organization censor a person only because they belong to a particular group.

 

I think it's terrible.

I do not condone censorship any more than I condone infringement on private property rights, though we have to acknolwdge the latter trumps the former. No pun intended.

No private party owes platform to another private party. Neither a baker shall be compelled to bake a cake nor a server farm be compelled to host a website.

 

The problem with the democrats argument is that these are virtual monopolies with no practical work arounds. They just want us to shut up. That attitude will never be good for this country.

 

Essentially, yes. It's a "wink and nod" and it's only going to get worse. Trump noticed this and pushed for the repeal of section 230. As long as section 230 is in play, these corporations will now wield the overwhelming power they possess to crush dissenters. "Resistance is futile!"

 

But there are workarounds. Again, nothing is stopping Parler from hosting their own site. And if we believe in free markets and private property, then we must support the rights of private parties to freely associate and disassociate with whom they wish.

 

A bunch of people organized violence on Parler. By some estimates 1/6 of the violence was planned on Parler. So yeah, it makes sense for the FBI to probe Parler. The US makes a distinction between speaking and acting. The speech is no longer about speaking but about about acting out/ carrying out the violence.

 

You know who isn't opposed to the FBI probing Parler?.. Parler

"Like other social-media platforms, we have been cooperating and will continue to cooperate with law-enforcement efforts to identify and prosecute those individuals responsible for organizing and carrying out the shameless Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Parler welcomes Rep. Maloney’s call to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation conduct a robust examination of our policies and actions" - Parler Chief Operating Office Jeffrey Wernick



Note that section 230 protects Parler from being held liable for what third parties post on their website. An FBI probe merely means they are examining the website to hold said third parties who partook in criminal conduct responsible. Also note that this FBI probe has nothing to do with amazon's disassociation with Parler. The decision was amazon's, not the FBI's

 

As is their right.

 

one has no free speech right to incite and plan violent acts

if people are caught doing this, they risk being banned by the social media company at the least and imprisoned at the most if found guilty in a court of law

 

I am missing the crime to which the thread title refers. I am curious to see the charge and the language in the statutes that this behavior is 'reaching'

 

Web hosting companies are NOT virtual monopolies. There are no significant barriers to entry and there is plenty of competition.

 

So? Do you have a point?

You see I'm for everyone's free speech. Not just those from one side or the other. That is what free speech is about. Letting those with speech one disagrees with to speak.