Propaganda - and Social Media - and Free Speech

That’s because the first amendment doesn’t apply to non-govt entities. You should know this.

 

Do you want the govt to force private entities like Facebook to not have its own rules and be forced to allow people to post whatever they want no matter how potentially harmful it could be? Let’s see if you can actually give a direct answer this time.

 

Not at all if you understand the definition of two words: voluntary and consent.

 

It's like pulling teeth...

 

No I do not .wish that they be forced to allow poeple to post whatever they want regardless of harm.

Was that direct enough for ya ?

 

Yes, you gave an example of a ghetto and then tried to pretend that a comment of mine was just about the ghetto. And you keep ignoring all the examples that I give. Insisting that slurs mostly lead to violence. As if the words themselves create the violence. Your argument is the same as an anti-gunner. Words cause violence! Guns cause violence!. They don't. HUMANS cause violence. That is a fact. People cannot give offense. They can only take offense. I should know. I was bullied as a child. So don't give me that crap. The only thing that is a joke around here is your arguments. You continually make the same mistake because you refuse to consider anything else. You proved that when you refused to address the FACT that people get called slurs all the time and and a majority of the time do not react violently. You like to single out blacks and the N word. What about Asians and the slur words that they deal with? How often do you hear them causing violence due to it? What about slur words towards white people? What about slur words towards Hispanics? Do some people in either of those groups commit violence because of words? Yes. Do most? No. And you have yet to prove your statement with any sort of statistics. So don't try and use that when you haven't shown bupkis on that front. Even though you were asked for it. All that you're doing is spewing propaganda.

 

So then why are you arguing with me?

 

It’s amazing how many people don’t have a grasp on the first amendment.

 

You are not seriously asking these questions, right? This is a gag? Please tell me it's a gag. Sigh, I'll play along...

First of all, it's "you or I." The writer always places his or her pronoun after the addressee. Our government (lower-case, it is not a proper noun unless followed by the name of the jurisdiction it governs) does not "have the ability to ban (speech)" because we are governed under a document called the Constitution of the United States. And contained within that Constitution is a special section called the Bill of Rights. And within that Bill of Rights are a set of amendments, little paragraphs that say things like what the government does not "have the ability to do." It specifically guarantees the rights of the people by limiting the power of the state. In other words, the state -- which is the institution made of people we have elected to govern us -- is restrained by the Constitution. The founders thought freedom of speech was SO IMPORTANT, they actually put it first in the very first of those ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

Now here's where it gets tricky, apparently for a lot of people (I mean a WHOLE LOT of people) which frankly boggles the mind...With a few (unfortunate) exceptions, the Constitution only restrains the government. IT DOES NOT RESTRAIN THE PEOPLE.

So let me make this so simple, anyone can understand it... the government is the people who we vote for and who govern. This association is INVOLUNTARY. Meaning, whether you like it or not, you are governed. But the good news is -- at least in our society -- there are a lot of restraints on what that government can do to us: LIKE CENSORING FREE SPEECH.

The NOT GOVERNMENT is anyone else, say Joe's Car Repair shop, or your local Piggly Wiggly, or a social media site like Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. MySpace (OMG WHO REMEMBERS MYSPACE????) Unlike the citizen's association to the GOVERNMENT, This association is STRICTLY VOLUNTARY, mutually-so. Meaning, if you don't like the way Facebook conducts its business, you are free to leave. And if Facebook doesn't like the way you use its service, they are free to prevent you from using it. This is the basis of most interactions between free men who are NOT GOVERNMENT. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to adults.

What do all these NOT GOVERNMENTS have in common? Hint: They are NOT THE GOVERNMENT! So what document restrains them from "censoring" you? I'm going to let you answer that one on your own to make sure you've been paying attention.

I presume you mean when he was the occupant of the White House. Well, let's flow-chart this to see if we can come up with the answer...

Now Trump could be one of two types of people when he was president: Do you remember what they were? Here's a hint... GOVERNMENT or? What's the other?Did you say NOT GOVERNMENT? That's very good!! Really excellent work! Now, you should be able to answer your own question by going through the exercise above. Can't wait for your answer...

 

Not really, unfortunately.

 

There are a good many nice people here for me to talk to.
I do not enjoy the lashing by you. It was not necessary but you wanted to sound superior. Apparently your standards are posters must speak as they are writing a paper at a major university.

 

Frankly, your posts are hard to read when you don't use standard English and conventional punctuation.

Noted, you have no rebuttal other than to criticize my critique of your poor syntax.

 

I will take that as you do not understand the points I have made. I believe my grasp of the amendments is better by far than the majority of voters.

Normally Democrats' trash the hell out of corporations. But it seems to me they love corporations due to them banning Trump or stopping members of the group from speaking out.
We get to say you as you apparently enjoy what corporations allow us to say.

 

When I was in college, my freshman English teacher taught us all to communicate with the majority, not some snooty bearded wanna be professors. What you pulled is classical ad hominem. And you know that because I believe you told that to others posting.

 

No I didn't .. is you that is making things up and attributing to me .. and have been going on about it .. after being corrected in numerous posts - which is even worse.

You were the one that said I was trying to equivocated the ghetto to the rest of society .. a patent falsehood .. which you are now trying to project your nonsense onto me.. so up a rope go to pee.

Certain types racial slurs indeed have a high propensity to lead to violence - your claim to the contrary is abject nonsense on steroids.

the rest of your post is rambling incoherent gibberish .. full of strawman accusations .. telling me that my arguments are this and that .. when you have yet to be able to grasp the basics ..

Man walks into a bar - walks up to some black fellow -- calls him the N-Word - not complicated.

Regardless .. I will use a different argument ..since you are unable to understand that words can lead to violence .. and direct physical harm - yelling fire in a crowded theatre being one example .. but -- you wish to disagree .. denial of the obvious I would say .. but no matter.

The foundindg principles - or rather "Founding Principle" - has a remedy for situations like this - if you can get an overwhelming majority to agree with you .. at least 2/3rds 67% -- any law is legitimate.

 

Fair point.

I'm sorry if you think using proper English is wrong.

 

Didn't know that I was arguing with you ? you keep accusing me of silly things I did not say ..completely oblivious to what I did actually say .. and I have merely been correcting you.

 

Well for you they do not apply so why would they apply to the Feds?
It seems silly to have a forked tongue law on the books.
Say you, you get to rob me.
Say Feds, you do not get to rob me.
Even though the Feds rip us off for taxes. We have zero to say about the kind of taxes, the amounts or even the rules of them.

 

Frankly I did not say it is wrong. And you are talking of punctuation. I say now if you want to be a drain on this forum, treat all members as you treat me. Lay into all of them. Do not let them get away with skipping a comma. Show them you are the boss.

 

"Standard Eglish and conventional punctuation" -- In an international forum of bloggers .. What a joke ... having trouble comprenending what you are reading cause a period in the wrong place mate ... is that what it is ..

I have read and comprehended Roberts posts fine.

You then finish with one of the most mindless circular predictions one can imagine .. how is that for not criticizing your criticism of syntax

Whats the point of Robbery - When nothing is worth Taking .. kind of tough to tell a scruf the big mistake he's making .. Stand and Deliver - your money or your life -- Try to use a mirror - not bullet or a knife .. but even though - you lose your soul .. your conscience will be mine..

 

You have shown no understanding of the first ammendment ? - do perhaps take log out of own eye .. and who are these "Others" . and what is it they don't understand. tell me..

 

I had not planned to attack him. And I thought he warned against the Ad Hominem? Someone did.

Thanks by the way.

On the propaganda over the budget I submit this video.

Democrats will always damn Reagan for higher budgets. But they drove up the costs. So they could blame Reagan.

 

You would be wrong in your assumption. I am indifferent to ANYONE getting banned from a social media site because I realize non-govt entities are not subject to first amendment and can do whatever it wants. Once you understand this is might help you not be so emotional.

 

Based on your posts to me. Seems you didn’t even know what your argument was. Meh

 

Which argument was that ?