Current Events > Liberals: 'They're a private business it's OK if they violate freedom of speech'

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
CableZL 08/12/18 1:51:58 PM #252:	Damn_Underscore posted... hockeybub89 posted... Damn_Underscore posted... - If you don't like Donald Trump, why not just leave the country? Why didn't you leave the country during Obama? Would you have left if Trump lost? Because I didn't mind Obama. And I wouldn't have left if Hillary was president. But even if I wanted to, it's not something that I could have just done. And that's exactly why "If you don't like youtube, make your own free speech video hosting site" is a stupid argument. Companies with that amount of influence shouldn't have the same rights as individual people. That's the entire reason why people didn't like the Citizens United ruling. Websites should be able to delete offensive content. But if Alex Jones was banned for breaking the ToS of different websites, he should be able to apologize, promise not to do it again, and get his accounts back if that's what he wants. Actually, making your own video hosting site is very much something you can just do. --- https://imgur.com/ByKGlJb https://imgur.com/nZdaA8D https://imgur.com/VBLBILg <cite>CableZL posted [p:906748766] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>- If you don't like Donald Trump, why not just leave the country?</quote> Why didn't you leave the country during Obama? Would you have left if Trump lost?</quote> Because I didn't mind Obama. And I wouldn't have left if Hillary was president. But even if I wanted to, it's not something that I could have just done. And that's exactly why "If you don't like youtube, make your own free speech video hosting site" is a stupid argument. Companies with that amount of influence shouldn't have the same rights as individual people. That's the entire reason why people didn't like the Citizens United ruling. Websites should be able to delete offensive content. But if Alex Jones was banned for breaking the ToS of different websites, he should be able to apologize, promise not to do it again, and get his accounts back if that's what he wants.</quote> Actually, making your own video hosting site is very much something you can just do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/12/18 1:56:41 PM #253:	Damn_Underscore posted... hockeybub89 posted... Damn_Underscore posted... - If you don't like Donald Trump, why not just leave the country? Why didn't you leave the country during Obama? Would you have left if Trump lost? Because I didn't mind Obama. And I wouldn't have left if Hillary was president. But even if I wanted to, it's not something that I could have just done. And that's exactly why "If you don't like youtube, make your own free speech video hosting site" is a stupid argument. Companies with that amount of influence shouldn't have the same rights as individual people. That's the entire reason why people didn't like the Citizens United ruling. Websites should be able to delete offensive content. But if Alex Jones was banned for breaking the ToS of different websites, he should be able to apologize, promise not to do it again, and get his accounts back if that's what he wants. Citizens United allows private companies to spend more towards politics than individual citizens. Can you get any facts right? --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906748981] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>- If you don't like Donald Trump, why not just leave the country?</quote> Why didn't you leave the country during Obama? Would you have left if Trump lost?</quote> Because I didn't mind Obama. And I wouldn't have left if Hillary was president. But even if I wanted to, it's not something that I could have just done. And that's exactly why "If you don't like youtube, make your own free speech video hosting site" is a stupid argument. Companies with that amount of influence shouldn't have the same rights as individual people. That's the entire reason why people didn't like the Citizens United ruling. Websites should be able to delete offensive content. But if Alex Jones was banned for breaking the ToS of different websites, he should be able to apologize, promise not to do it again, and get his accounts back if that's what he wants.</quote> Citizens United allows private companies to spend more towards politics than individual citizens. Can you get any facts right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/12/18 2:03:06 PM #254:	CableZL posted... Damn_Underscore posted... hockeybub89 posted... Damn_Underscore posted... - If you don't like Donald Trump, why not just leave the country? Why didn't you leave the country during Obama? Would you have left if Trump lost? Because I didn't mind Obama. And I wouldn't have left if Hillary was president. But even if I wanted to, it's not something that I could have just done. And that's exactly why "If you don't like youtube, make your own free speech video hosting site" is a stupid argument. Companies with that amount of influence shouldn't have the same rights as individual people. That's the entire reason why people didn't like the Citizens United ruling. Websites should be able to delete offensive content. But if Alex Jones was banned for breaking the ToS of different websites, he should be able to apologize, promise not to do it again, and get his accounts back if that's what he wants. Actually, making your own video hosting site is very much something you can just do. Please, you know that I was implying making a video hosting site (or a football league) that has any viability of existing at all, let alone being as popular as Youtube or the NFL. And this is a response to @King_Hellebuyck and @Fuparulez : Businesses can and should be regulated. I know you probably agree with this already, you're just trying to be oppositional. Either way, there are several examples of Congressional Acts that regulated businesses and improved the country as a result: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Glass-Steagall Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the list goes on. Maybe one day there will be an act or even a Constitutional amendment that cancels the Citizens United ruling. And by the way to King_Hellebuyck again, the Citizens United ruling used the 1st Amendment to say that private organizations could spend unlimited money on political activities, almost as if they are people. Which is where the "corporations aren't people" line comes from. All of these could have been argued as going against the "freedom of speech" of businesses. But maybe businesses don't or shouldn't have the same free speech rights as people do. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906749292] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>- If you don't like Donald Trump, why not just leave the country?</quote> Why didn't you leave the country during Obama? Would you have left if Trump lost?</quote> Because I didn't mind Obama. And I wouldn't have left if Hillary was president. But even if I wanted to, it's not something that I could have just done. And that's exactly why "If you don't like youtube, make your own free speech video hosting site" is a stupid argument. Companies with that amount of influence shouldn't have the same rights as individual people. That's the entire reason why people didn't like the Citizens United ruling. Websites should be able to delete offensive content. But if Alex Jones was banned for breaking the ToS of different websites, he should be able to apologize, promise not to do it again, and get his accounts back if that's what he wants.</quote> Actually, making your own video hosting site is very much something you can just do.</quote> Please, you know that I was implying making a video hosting site (or a football league) that has any viability of existing at all, let alone being as popular as Youtube or the NFL. And this is a response to @King_Hellebuyck and @Fuparulez : Businesses can and should be regulated. I know you probably agree with this already, you're just trying to be oppositional. Either way, there are several examples of Congressional Acts that regulated businesses and improved the country as a result: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Glass-Steagall Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the list goes on. Maybe one day there will be an act or even a Constitutional amendment that cancels the Citizens United ruling. And by the way to King_Hellebuyck again, the Citizens United ruling used the 1st Amendment to say that private organizations could spend unlimited money on political activities, almost as if they are people. Which is where the "corporations aren't people" line comes from. All of these could have been argued as going against the "freedom of speech" of businesses. But maybe businesses don't or shouldn't have the same free speech rights as people do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 08/12/18 2:07:12 PM #255:	Damn_Underscore posted... Please, you know that I was implying making a video hosting site (or a football league) that has any viability of existing at all, let alone being as popular as Youtube or the NFL. Making a video hosting site actuality isn't that hard at all, so it's very possible to have a video hosting site that exists. Infowars already has its own following, so it wouldn't be hard for them to direct people to said hosting site to view content. --- https://imgur.com/ByKGlJb https://imgur.com/nZdaA8D https://imgur.com/VBLBILg <cite>CableZL posted [p:906749474] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Please, you know that I was implying making a video hosting site (or a football league) that has any viability of existing at all, let alone being as popular as Youtube or the NFL.</quote> Making a video hosting site actuality isn't that hard at all, so it's very possible to have a video hosting site that exists. Infowars already has its own following, so it wouldn't be hard for them to direct people to said hosting site to view content.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/12/18 2:22:37 PM #256:	Citizens United allows corporations to spend MORE THAN PEOPLE Do you understand that? --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906750342] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote>Citizens United allows corporations to spend MORE THAN PEOPLE Do you understand that?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AcFan87 08/12/18 2:32:42 PM #257:	Damn_Underscore posted... This thinking is wrong on so many levels - It's hypocritical. Liberals tend to think ISPs should be obligated to follow Net Neutrality is based on the principle of freedom of speech. Also the only reason they are OK with say Alex Jones discussion being banned is that they disagree with/don't like Alex Jones. - Banning discussion of certain topics is not the same thing as moderating posts that you already said weren't allowed in your ToS - Websites like Facebook, Twitter , Youtube, and Instagram have become social media monopolies. Because of this they should have fewer rights as "private businesses", and I think in any other situation liberals would agree with this (Citizens United for example) Liberal thinking usually is. <cite>AcFan87 posted [p:906750864] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>This thinking is wrong on so many levels - It's hypocritical. Liberals tend to think ISPs should be obligated to follow Net Neutrality is based on the principle of freedom of speech. Also the only reason they are OK with say Alex Jones discussion being banned is that they disagree with/don't like Alex Jones. - Banning discussion of certain topics is not the same thing as moderating posts that you already said weren't allowed in your ToS - Websites like Facebook, Twitter , Youtube, and Instagram have become social media monopolies. Because of this they should have fewer rights as "private businesses", and I think in any other situation liberals would agree with this (Citizens United for example)</quote> Liberal thinking usually is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/12/18 2:39:43 PM #259:	King_Hellebuyck posted... Citizens United allows corporations to spend MORE THAN PEOPLE Do you understand that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC "The United States Supreme Court held (54) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations." http://uscommonsense.org/research/citizens-united/ "Prior to Citizens United, campaign spending was regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act and amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. These laws prohibited corporations from spending money on independent expenditures or financing electioneering communications. ... In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on corporate spending for independent expenditures and electioneering communications was unconstitutional. Arguing that laws restricting political speech must be subject to strict scrutiny, the Court ruled against the FEC and reversed the ban on corporate spending. However, the ruling upheld the existing disclaimer and disclosure requirements." https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters "The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In a nutshell, the high courts 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html "The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics." --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906751214] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>King_Hellebuyck posted...</cite> <quote>Citizens United allows corporations to spend MORE THAN PEOPLE Do you understand that?</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC "The United States Supreme Court held (54) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations." http://uscommonsense.org/research/citizens-united/ "Prior to Citizens United, campaign spending was regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act and amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. These laws prohibited corporations from spending money on independent expenditures or financing electioneering communications. ... In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on corporate spending for independent expenditures and electioneering communications was unconstitutional. Arguing that laws restricting political speech must be subject to strict scrutiny, the Court ruled against the FEC and reversed the ban on corporate spending. However, the ruling upheld the existing disclaimer and disclosure requirements." https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters "The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. In a nutshell, the high courts 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html "The reason for this exponential leap in political spending, if you talk to most Democrats or read most news reports, comes down to two words: Citizens United. The term is shorthand for a Supreme Court decision that gave corporations much of the same right to political speech as individuals have, thus removing virtually any restriction on corporate money in politics. The oft-repeated narrative of 2012 goes like this: Citizens United unleashed a torrent of money from businesses and the multimillionaires who run them, and as a result we are now seeing the corporate takeover of American politics."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/12/18 2:43:23 PM #260:	Ok now show me how much money an individual can spend on a campaign compared to a private company --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906751384] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote>Ok now show me how much money an individual can spend on a campaign compared to a private company</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/12/18 2:47:00 PM #261:	I don't know, probably less. That's not the reason people want to overturn the ruling though, and you know it. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906751555] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote>I don't know, probably less. That's not the reason people want to overturn the ruling though, and you know it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/12/18 2:48:51 PM #262:	Damn_Underscore posted... I don't know, probably less. That's not the reason people want to overturn the ruling though, and you know it. No that is the entire reason - companies can spend unlimited amounts whereas individuals cannot. If companies were confined to the same limitations as individuals then there wouldnt be a problem. --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906751661] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>I don't know, probably less. That's not the reason people want to overturn the ruling though, and you know it.</quote> No that is the entire reason - companies can spend unlimited amounts whereas individuals cannot. If companies were confined to the same limitations as individuals then there wouldnt be a problem.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrisbeeDude 08/12/18 2:52:33 PM #263:	is the alt literally advocating for social media platforms to be FORCED to host right wing views? lmao when you become the thing you claim you hate... --- If you're not voting like a black woman, your opinion doesn't matter to me <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:906751861] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote>is the alt literally advocating for social media platforms to be FORCED to host right wing views? lmao when you become the thing you claim you hate...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
King_Hellebuyck 08/12/18 2:54:31 PM #264:	FrisbeeDude posted... is the alt literally advocating for social media platforms to be FORCED to host right wing views? lmao when you become the thing you claim you hate... Or theyre just trolling, which seems more likely --- All Hail King Connor! Official Connor Hellebuyck fanboy <cite>King_Hellebuyck posted [p:906751957] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote>is the alt literally advocating for social media platforms to be FORCED to host right wing views? lmao when you become the thing you claim you hate...</quote> Or theyre just trolling, which seems more likely</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/12/18 2:57:04 PM #265:	Frisbee Dude, you obviously have no idea what my political views are. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906752081] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote>Frisbee Dude, you obviously have no idea what my political views are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Webmaster4531 08/12/18 2:58:22 PM #266:	Damn_Underscore posted... Frisbee Dude, I'm trolling. --- Ad Hominem. <cite>Webmaster4531 posted [p:906752148] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Frisbee Dude, I'm trolling.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/12/18 3:02:02 PM #267:	I think you are trolling. Yeah, that's why you guys have the exact same opinion in every political topic. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:906752319] in Liberals: ... [t:76893453]...</cite> <quote>I think you are trolling. Yeah, that's why you guys have the exact same opinion in every political topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Current Events > Liberals: 'They're a private business it's OK if they violate freedom of speech' (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Liberals: 'They're a private business it's OK if they violate freedom of speech'