Free speech? Sure – but only for leftists

Think that would be kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Better to lead by example in my view.

 

Ah, poor analogy, because why should anybody be able to force Fox to broadcast stuff they don't agree with, like lefty viewpoints?

But, you want to do the exact same thing to other platforms that you don't agree with. Do you even see the inconsistency in your stance?

 

I'm sorry, who am I trying to force exactly? Please be specific.

 

Not to put to fine a point on it, but social media providers are private companies. They can censor and ban anyone they want. There is no constitutional nexus as your OP would seem to suggest.

 

Bring back "The Fairness Doctrine", a good requirement in 1949 for broadcast news, add in cable and the internet and it's an even better one for today. You wanna be an advocate for one party or the other, fine, but don't PRETEND to be an "objective news" organization.

 

I would prefer to see the state not regulating content of any kind. Caveat emptor. Less government = more freedom. But that means information consumers need to be smart.

 

I'm sorry, who am I trying to force exactly? Please be specific.

 

Do you believe there is any organization that is "objective"? If yes, which ones?

 

Repeat after me:
The first amendment protects your right to expression from the government, not from private companies.
The first amendment protects your right to expression from the government, not from private companies.
The first amendment protects your right to expression from the government, not from private companies.

 

Actually they are publicly held companies with a special grant of immunity because they held themselves out as nonpartisan common carriers, no more responsible for content than say, the trucking company that delivers newspapers. Now that it's clear that they want to censor, they need to be stripped of this special dispensation that no longer applies and held to account for their actions just like any other publisher.

STRAIGHT-UP ORWELLIAN BULLSHIT: Instagram censors post for linking Joe Biden’s 1994 law to mass incarceration. “Social media” has been the worst thing to happen to our politics, our journalism, and our culture in the history of this nation. It needs to be taken apart.

 

If you think that the First Amendment means that people are required to publish your views, even if they don't want to, then you don't understand the first thing about the First Amendment. In fact, you are explicitly arguing against it.

 

If you think that is "Orwellian," you don't understand anything about Orwell. And if you want to tell people what to publish, you are the one raging against the First Amendment, not them. There's nothing "special" about their immunity. They don't produce the content. They aren't responsible for it.

 

Nobody forces anyone to read it. The government doesn't direct what these companies can put on the internet, and with a little searching, anyone
can find information that conforms to their person al bubble - so I'm not sure what you are freaking out about.

The big problem seams to be that right-wingers are freaking out because their desired websites don't show up on the first page of the search. Tough ****.
Go to the second page.

 

So right wing radio should be outlawed or required to advocate for Dems? Bull ****.

 

You want to force private companies to provide a platform for speech they do not approve of. What would you say if government would force Breitbart to publish left wing viewpoints? Would that be okay or not?

 

This is why it is paramount for us to keep Alternative Media like Parler, BitChute, Minds, InfoWars online. Otherwise, dissenters would lose all platforms and Free Speech would end. Sadly that is Totalitarian Left wants.

 

I'm do? This is news to me. Kindly cite the post(s) in which I make this alleged claim. I'll wait...

 

As long as you have an audience, that shouldn't be an issue. There's nothing "totalitarian" about private property rights.

 

Interesting that you oppose the second amendment, but claim to support free speech. Without the second amendment, how to you propose we defend the first amendment? (Or any other right)

 

I would not even think about anything illegal.

Civil War is an odd fantasy.

Guns used for 34,000 suicides and homicides per year in USA help no one.

 

That doesn't answer my question. Let me readdress the question you ran away from in a previous thread:

Why are the contents of an armored car worth armed protection while a mother and her children not worth armed protection?

 

Civilians in UK do get armed protection from some Law Enforcement officers -- those who have license to carry firearms.

The person most likely to be killed by a gun is the gun's owner/acquirer.

 

Hypocrisy????????

A few days ago, my thread titled; When will the awakenings occur?

Two of Trump's loyalists who posted in this thread believed I was baiting/flamebaiting.

Same day, this site moderator removed the thread.

FREE SPEECH?????????

 

I would think there should be limits to publishing false information that can hurt people. Within my moral code it would be wrong of me to promote the ingestion of bleach to treat Covid-19.

 

Sadly those who determine what is "false" are extremely biased to the Left.