But most folks on the left are capitalists... they simply want more regulation than conservatives do. Most people on the right are capitalists too but not all.Matt wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:21 amJim Toy is a not for profit. I'm not suggesting the politics of all business people are right wing, but the business fundamentals need to be if the business is going to stay around.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:03 amTell the businesses in Ann Arbor they are right wing, including the Jim Toy LGBT Center. Love ya man but c'mon.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 12 at 7:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
-
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:10 pm
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
Youtube keeps taking the video down. Since the threat is a direct one, and it's clear that her meaning is to try to incite violence against Trump supporters, it falls into the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exemption from the First Amendment protection.
Note to failing Constitutional Law 101 students:
The First Amendment is not "separation of church and state", it is about FREE SPEECH, and no SPECIFIC religion being a STATE RELIGION.
Note to failing Constitutional Law 101 students:
The First Amendment is not "separation of church and state", it is about FREE SPEECH, and no SPECIFIC religion being a STATE RELIGION.
Disagreeing with Communists is NOT an impeachable offense.
Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.
Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.
Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.
Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.
-
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:10 pm
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
Notice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!
Disagreeing with Communists is NOT an impeachable offense.
Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.
Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.
Never eat Sushi past its expiration date.
Those who refuse to drain the swamp are doomed to drown in it.
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
So here's the question:TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:53 pmNotice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!
Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.
Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
No... the first amendment does not apply to them or any other business.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:37 pmSo here's the question:TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:53 pmNotice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!
Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.
Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?
- MWmetalhead
- Site Admin
- Posts: 12230
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
There are plenty of proponents of free enterprise who endorse governmental involvement in certain areas of public life.
Free enterprise basically means private parties are free to engage in commerce and form & own equity in commercial ventures. The means of production, logistics, managerial authority and ownership isn't controlled or held by the government.
Technically, one can be a proponent of free enterprise and still be supportive of law enforcement rollbacks, support abortion rights, support restrictive trade policies with foreign nations, support firearms restrictions, support robust subsidization of public education, support rigid environmental regulations, etc.
Free enterprise simply is a subset of general liberty.
Free enterprise basically means private parties are free to engage in commerce and form & own equity in commercial ventures. The means of production, logistics, managerial authority and ownership isn't controlled or held by the government.
Technically, one can be a proponent of free enterprise and still be supportive of law enforcement rollbacks, support abortion rights, support restrictive trade policies with foreign nations, support firearms restrictions, support robust subsidization of public education, support rigid environmental regulations, etc.
Free enterprise simply is a subset of general liberty.
Morgan Wallen is a piece of garbage.
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
So here's the First Amendment:Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:57 pmNo... the first amendment does not apply to them or any other business.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:37 pmSo here's the question:TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:53 pmNotice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!
Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.
Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Am I higher than the cost of living thinking this backs up what I'm saying? This says the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech. It don't say private business can't. A place of business can ask you to leave if they want, for having a foul mouth, for anything you may say. You could talk about a Ford Focus, and if the owner has had a bad experience with a Ford Focus, he can ask you to leave. Walmart does not allow people to open carry in the store. There is no law saying we can't do that. But it's their store. They can do whatever they want. They are a private business.
I'm still not convinced that Facebook and the others can't, for any reason they choose, restrict what is posted to their website. It's their website. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State of New York. It's not a public utility.
Depending on what news organization it may be, they are all slanted to the right or to the left. Does anyone file a lawsuit what a media outlet chooses what to run and not run? Look at the fringe links that we see all the time on here. Any regulators seeking to shut them down because they don't tell the other side of the story? No. It's free speech.
Am I using my head for self proctology here? Feel free to say so.
- audiophile
- Posts: 8610
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
- Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
No, I wouldn't say that!
However section 230 protects web providers from litigation for liable only if they remain neutral. There is an exception for indecent or profane content, but no exception for political content.
Facebook basically is playing with fire, and could be sued for liable because they are essentially making the content their own with excessive, barring, editing and "warnings".
Basically if it's free-for-all, it's pretty obvious it the OP's content.
However section 230 protects web providers from litigation for liable only if they remain neutral. There is an exception for indecent or profane content, but no exception for political content.
Facebook basically is playing with fire, and could be sued for liable because they are essentially making the content their own with excessive, barring, editing and "warnings".
Basically if it's free-for-all, it's pretty obvious it the OP's content.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Re: State Rep. Makes Direct Threats, Advocates Violence Against "Trumpers"
You are 100% correct. It’s between you and the government. It does not pertain to any other entity period. People misunderstand this. They think free speech means they can say anything to anyone anywhere at any time. This couldn’t be further from the truth.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:16 pmSo here's the First Amendment:Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:57 pmNo... the first amendment does not apply to them or any other business.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:37 pmSo here's the question:TC Shuts Up wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:53 pmNotice that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter only take things down WHEN THEY'RE TRUE!
Can they do anything they want? Can they pick and choose to show and delete any content they desire? All of the tech giants you mention are business. Yes, humongous businesses, but still just a business. None of these are public utilities or government entities beholden to those paying for it.
Yeah, they show up basically because they were subpoenaed. But I'm not quite sure I can think of any laws, rules or edicts that would prevent Mark Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai from looking regulators and legislative officials in the eye and saying "Pack Sand, we can do whatever we want". Am I mistaken?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Am I higher than the cost of living thinking this backs up what I'm saying? This says the GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech. It don't say private business can't. A place of business can ask you to leave if they want, for having a foul mouth, for anything you may say. You could talk about a Ford Focus, and if the owner has had a bad experience with a Ford Focus, he can ask you to leave. Walmart does not allow people to open carry in the store. There is no law saying we can't do that. But it's their store. They can do whatever they want. They are a private business.
I'm still not convinced that Facebook and the others can't, for any reason they choose, restrict what is posted to their website. It's their website. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State of New York. It's not a public utility.
Depending on what news organization it may be, they are all slanted to the right or to the left. Does anyone file a lawsuit what a media outlet chooses what to run and not run? Look at the fringe links that we see all the time on here. Any regulators seeking to shut them down because they don't tell the other side of the story? No. It's free speech.
Am I using my head for self proctology here? Feel free to say so.