BOMBSHELL: Twitter Censored Republican at the Request of the Mass, SOS Office

I support the right of private property owners to moderate their property as they see fit when it comes to what is displayed and what isn't. That's how internet forums, social media, traditional television and print media, and even things like sign and billboard owners have functioned forever. This is not a new concept nor one that was even really in question until very recently when some folks decide they have a right to use someone else's property according to their own rules, not the rules they agreed to when they started using it.

If you think that my putting my speech on someone else's property entitles me to then dictate the terms of that space, than what you really support is theft, not free speech.

 

Yes, but you DON'T support the right of free speech. You advocate for censorship, and offer pure sophistry in the process. That makes you an apologist for censors in the corporate world.

 

Free speech doesn’t exist in the corporate world. Never did, and no it should not.

And quite frankly, you won’t like what a ruling against Facebook will create. It won’t be less censorship. It will be total censorship.

 

But even the removing of criminal post would require them to check every post before it was posted as to make sure none are ever posted. Is that what you wish for every forum on the web? A delay while some admin checks your post?

 

I did not realize this was the "I invented email" guy. The story is likely totally made up then. He had some bullshit he put out about how the election was stolen that got debunked in about 12 seconds.

 

So for the record Republicans have no clue about the First amendment, what Communism is, or a socialist is.............Have I forgotten other words they are clueless of the definitions?

 

So, that's a yes as in you support THEFT?

I've made my position clear in this thread. I believe in free speech in so much as the government cannot prevent you from exercising your speech. The application of free speech that you're trying to use here has never existed in this country. So what you support seems to be nothing short of amending the Constitution to state that an individual has the right to claim ownership over any space they have decided to put their speech.

 

So be it. That's where the regulatory power of the people through government and the law come into play. But the effect that a repeal of Section 230 will have will be far more stifling than what we have now. It would be a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

I read the entire article, and their is nothing more than “Dr. Ayyadurai later discovered that his tweets were deleted at the request of employees in the Secretary of State’s office” with no proof.

This is just another right wing political ploy. He has to show proof that someone in their official capacity in the SOS office requested this, AND, that Twitter removed it for that reason

This is going nowhere....its just more political theatre...

 

I don't think it would be stifling. Instead, it would serve to treat Facebook, Twitter, PF in the same breath as a conversation between the two of us in a coffee shop. Provided that none of what we say or intend to say or do is criminal, it can't be touched. Period. It would mean you couldn't have the "this is being contested" thing under the Trump posts, they would have no regulatory authority. They could moderate, but only based on common principles in the public sphere.

This is all about what these companies want to be, and what liabilities or privileges they want to take. Until now, the perception of bias wasn't strong so they got to have it both ways, but now they leaned to a side thus forcing said side to take action. If anyone spited their nose to cut their face, it was the reaction to Trump and conservatives.

 

Liberalism.

 

I would say it was mostly a reaction to Trump, a public official who used his space on those platforms to spread lies that resulted in, among other things, people being incited to riot in the Capital building. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a company to deny the use of their space for the dissemination of purposeful misinformation, especially by someone whose position gives their words more authority than others.

Your coffee shop example only works if we were having our conversation in written words on coffee shop property. For example if a coffee shop had a chalk board or something like that where people could write things of their own choosing. Facebook cannot censor speech that is spoken out loud between two people, it can only censor speech that is written on it's platform.

And at the end of the day, every user has agreed to the terms with which they use a social media service. They've agreed that there are rules and there can be consequences for breaking those rules. I cannot give my consent to follow a set of rules and then expect to be able to operate above them.

 

Ayyadurai is a Complete Tinfoil Hat Whackjob.

Obviously, this is strictly a political ploy heading nowhere.

And, there is ZERO chance that 230 gets repealed. NONE.

 

Yes, you have indeed made your position clear. You support censorship of those presenting a dissenting opinion from various Official Narratives.

 

That explains a lot. Sorry. Can't resist.

 

Does the coffee shop have the right to regulate what you say in their shop?

 

NOT Being able to spew Unbridled (Unhihged) Idiocy on a Privately-Owned Entity (such as Twitter) does NOT equal "censorship".

Give me a break.

People who believe in Absurdist Fantasies such as Bigfoot, The Election being Stolen, or "2+2=5" have several outlets to get their Absurd Fantasies out into the public domain.

Nobody is being "censored".

 

Nicely done and put!

 

nope, what you want is Muslims to be able to take over Christian sites, violate their TOS and the gov to force Christians to allow that and visa versa

never happen, nor should it

 

Not in a country devoted to freedom and liberty.

Slander can be punished by way of civil law suits.

 

So, a business owner does not have the right to say that you cannot use profanity in their business?

So weird how freedom and liberty is always so one sided with some people.

I think a Christian Bookstore owner should be allowed to control what is said in their business just as I do in my home.

Why do you think the owner of a business does not have the right to freedom and liberty?

If the customer does not like the rules they are free to shop elsewhere.

 

Yes, let's celebrate the widespread use of censorship here in the Land of The Free. Let's celebrate the fusion of corporate and government interests in maintaining official narratives that can be questioned only under threat of prosecution.

Let's celebrate fascism here in the Fourth Reich.

 

It is not censorship when the person giving you a paycheck has a set of rules at their work place. If you do not agree with the rules you are free to leave and then say whatever the hell you want.

It is not censorship for Coke to tell its employees they are not allowed to wear a Pepsi shirt to work or spend their days at work talking about how much better Pepsi is than Coke.

Have you ever actually had a job?

 

Please walk in and tell your Boss to go “ F” himself. Let me know how much your speech is protected.

 

When I read comments like theirs I have to wonder if they have ever actually had a job. For all we know they are some middle schooler posting from their basement while watching cartoons.