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

And what is to stop that location from being banned like what is happening as shown in the video?

 

would you be as critical of a church that banned Muslims from spreading hate about their religion on their free web site's social media

the site has their TOS, and their visitors agree to it when they ask to be a member

 

Can't speak for kriman but yes I would be calling out that church also if they tried such. So long as no laws are broken.

 

I would defend the church's right to not have those people spreading hate on their site

 

Does the site specialize or do they allow anyone and everyone to join? It makes a difference. If they allow anyone to join, like twitter, then they should not be able to pick and choose. If they specialize then they can. Much like how AA laws protect against discrimination if a business is open to the public but does not cover private clubs.

I had assumed that you were talking about a site like Twitter, ie: a business open to the public, since that is essentially what is being talked about in this thread. If I was mistaken then apologies. If it's considered a private club that only allows certain types of membership then of course they can deny service.

Like I said previously, this is based on AA laws.

 

An extremely small number were responsible for the violent acts. Using that logic, they should censure BLM because they caused much more damage and many more deaths.

 

It's a brave new world. Eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom. Innovate or perish...

 

They should, but they don't have to. And I think that is the takeaway here.

 

The BLM causes most of the damage and deaths, but the democrats are OK with that because it was the democrats. That is the take away.

 

You keep saying that but here you are, posting on the internet. What gives? Is it that you are not censored from the internet?
How can that be - you have been posting for a week that you were censored from the internet.

Free speech does not guarantee every business the right to be hosted by every hosting site. Why is that so hard to understand?

There are literally thousands of ways you can still post your thoughts on the internet if Parler is not there. If Parler had
just gone broke and shut down, would you be denied your free speech?

 

if they post anything inciting violence, yes, they should ban them

just like they do not ban all Trump supporters, not all BLM members are banned because of the actions of some

 

GOOD! this is gonna blow up in their faces. Just watch

 

they have a TOS, as long as they follow the TOS, they're fine

the TOS defines what is allowed on their site

Twitter is a private members only club, same as political forum, for both you have to become a member

 

Trump did not tell them to go into the Capitol and get violent.

There have been posts which described BLM advocating violence.

Here is an example. "Last week, a gunman in Dallas opened fire on police at the end of a Black Lives Matter demonstration, killing five officers and wounding several others. Micah Johnson, the shooter, told a hostage negotiator that he was angry on behalf of Black Lives Matter and “wanted to kill white people, especially police officers.” Johnson’s Facebook page revealed an affinity for black nationalism, and he followed a Facebook group called the “African American Defense League,” which encouraged followers to “ATTACK EVERYTHING IN BLUE EXCEPT THE MAIL MAN” and “sprinkle Pigs Blood.” Johnson seems to have been the mirror-image of Dylann Roof, the white nationalist who killed nine black people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., last year."
Black Lives Matter Hypocrisy in Cheering Violence | National Review

 

That may be true, however, do you want to compel a private party to give platform to another private party and where does that end?

 

Oh trust me, if Trump is responsible for Jan. 6, Obama is responsible for all the cops that were executed under his watch. Note: Trump never said "storm the Capitol," and Obama never said "go kill cops." But we should be consistent in our accusations. Noted Mr. Obama's Twitter account is still active.

 

When it is a virtual monopoly, yes.

 

Lol, best knee-slapper of the decade. Thanks for the laugh.

 

Is there any particular reason why I should trust you?

 

I suppose we can debate your claim of a virtual monopoly, but assuming you are correct -- how does your solution specifically work under law? How do you compel the private parties to provide platform and how do you measure and enforce specific performance?

 

"Oh trust me" is a figure of speech. I am not personally seeking your trust, nor would such be on topic as I am not the topic of this thread.

 

He did tell them that the election was stolen, that Pence could stop it if he wanted to, and that the country was over if Biden were to win . . . even after knowing that his cultists had been sending death threats. And they showed up chanting for Pence's execution after Trump had Tweeted that he had failed. No one is dumb enough to think that was a coincidence. Nothing Obama did compares.

 

Depends on who you talk to.
"Even though the left-wing media will never give him credit, President Trump has been far tougher on Russia than his predecessor, Barack Obama."
President Trump is tougher on Russia in 18 months than Obama in eight years | TheHill

Trump talked nice to our enemies which was his way of trying to get some cooperation out of them.

 

Take face book as an example. It has worked wonderfully for me as a means to keep in contact with relatives and friends. Contact, which I will maintain even though I detest face book policies. If I moved to another platform, I would lose all that.

One way to enforce it would be for everyone to agree that it is wrong rather than accepting it because it is not them.

 

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water: The allegations against Trump are that he incited violence and/or sedition by the use of suggestive language. As he never said "go storm the Capitol," any attempt conflate his words on that day with a call to violence is wishful thinking. Or if it's NOT wishful thinking, then we need to apply the same standards to Mr. Obama who constantly railed against the police w/r/t African Americans, hence the ambush assassinations of police officers in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Seattle, Los Angeles, were the direct result of Obama's acerbic rhetoric: On more than one occasion, the killers of these cops cited "racial injustice" as the motivation for their cold-blooded murder of strangers who never did a damn thing to them. Furthermore, Obama's rhetoric created an atmosphere of animus between blacks and cops, and fanned the flames of racial division, making it easy for an extremist to rationalize unprovoked homicide.

So either both men incited violence or both men didn't. Rationally, this is the only possible outcome when weighed objectively by people of good will, arguing in good faith.