Current Events > Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not private entities

(+) Yeah! (+)

P4wn4g3 posted...

Funbazooka posted...

I'm just saying there's no reason to believe you.

There's no reason to try to convince you of anything.

Seriously. Whether Funbazooka believes what I'm saying or not is beyond insignificant.
---

CableZL posted...

No, you're saying you don't actually want to see the proof you're asking for.

You made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up (that's how this works) in some fashion that won't get you moderated.

I still don't even know what your sources are for this claim.
---

Funbazooka posted...

CableZL posted...

No, you're saying you don't actually want to see the proof you're asking for.

You made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up (that's how this works) in some fashion that won't get you moderated.

I still don't even know what your sources are for this claim.

Dude, you can be as ignorant as you like. You've been presented with facts. Whether you choose to accept them or not is on you and nobody else.
---

I've been presented with nothing. Zero. Absolute zero.
---

Funbazooka posted...

I've been presented with nothing. Zero. Absolute zero.

Funbazooka posted...

I've found only two sources when searching for it, PinkNews.co.uk and San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, supposedly quoting an Alex Jones rant.

You've found the information I'm referring to yourself. If you want more information, then

CableZL posted...

You are free to go to Infowars and watch Alex Jones' content.

---

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.
---

RealBroShiiii posted...

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.

A private entity is me or you. It was eventually extended to mean organizations as well, though that could be argued to have come out of the church having certain rights.

Edit: Also you are asking the first good question on this topic that I've seen or heard so far.
---

So your "multiple sources" were just those two sources I found? That's it? Amazing.

Like I said, what they provided is inconclusive.

Tell me which video on Alex Jones website contains the clip. There's no search bar, and past episodes only go so far back (unless I'm missing something). I see no video titles in reference to 'drag queens'. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

You made the claim, it is your responsibility to back that claim up.
---

Funbazooka posted...

So your "multiple sources" were just those two sources I found? That's it? Amazing.

Like I said, what they provided is inconclusive.

Tell me which video on Alex Jones website contains the clip. There's no search bar, and past episodes only go so far back. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

You made the claim, it is your responsibility to back that claim up.

I've given you Facebook's official statement on the matter. If you want to watch a video of the statement in question, you're free to do so.
---

Funbazooka posted...

So your "multiple sources" were just those two sources I found? That's it? Amazing.

Like I said, what they provided is inconclusive.

Tell me which video on Alex Jones website contains the clip. There's no search bar, and past episodes only go so far back (unless I'm missing something). I see no video titles in reference to 'drag queens'. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

You made the claim, it is your responsibility to back that claim up.

Nobody wants to watch Alex Jones for you.
---

Their statement doesn't back up your specific accusation.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Their statement doesn't back up your specific accusation.

The specific accusation is backed up by the two sources you found. Facebook's official statement is in alignment with those two sources in that the specific accusation would be considered a violation of the policies Facebook said were violated.

Again, if you want a video, go to Infowars and watch it.
---

CableZL posted...

The specific accusation is backed up by the two sources you found. Facebook's official statement is in alignment with those two sources in that the specific accusation would be considered a violation of the policies Facebook said were violated.

Again, if you want a video, go to Infowars and watch it.

Round and a round we go.

Those two sources didn't properly back up their claim. You haven't backed up the claim. And no, Facebook did not corroborate the claim.

You read something from two measly sources, and you believed it outright without ever investigating or seeing it for yourself. I know it must be frustrating being challenged on this but think of this as a learning experience.
---

RealBroShiiii posted...

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.

Except private entities can't discriminate either

Exactly my point.

Except when it comes to the second amendment you all pretend there's some hidden clause that says it only applies to the government.
---

DeadSite posted...

RealBroShiiii posted...

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.

Except private entities can't discriminate either

That really depends. I can discriminate against you all I want.
---

getting punished for violating a terms of service != discrimination

why can't rightists understand this
---

mario2000 posted...

getting punished for violating a terms of service != discrimination

why can't rightists understand this

If the terms of service said no slang or ebonics you'd cry foul.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Round and a round we go.

Those two sources didn't properly back up their claim. You haven't backed up the claim. And no, Facebook did not corroborate the claim.

You read something from two measly sources, and you believed it outright without ever investigating or seeing it for yourself. I know it must be frustrating being challenged on this but think of this as a learning experience.

LOL, you're flattering yourself if you think you're frustrating me. The two sources said Facebook banned Alex Jones because he called for drag queens to be burned alive. That would be in line with why Facebook said they banned Alex Jones.

Again, Facebook's official statement:

So what happened with InfoWars? They were up on Friday and now they are down?
As a result of reports we received, last week, we removed four videos on four Facebook Pages for violating our hate speech and bullying policies. These pages were the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the InfoWars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page. In addition, one of the admins of these Pages Alex Jones was placed in a 30-day block for his role in posting violating content to these Pages.

Since then, more content from the same Pages has been reported to us upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.

All four Pages have been unpublished for repeated violations of Community Standards and accumulating too many strikes. While much of the discussion around Infowars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue that we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred todays removals were related to this.

Calling for drag queens to be burned alive is indeed something that would be in violation of Facebook's hate speech policies as specified in their statement.

You're the only one here who seems to desperately want to see an actual video of Alex Jones saying these things. So you're the one who should watch said video.
---

mario2000 posted...

getting punished for violating a terms of service != discrimination

When others from the other end of the political spectrum aren't punished for comparable "hate-speech" rhetoric.. then yes that's discrimination.

Dorsey from Twitter fully admitted to their left-wing bias the other day.
---

RealBroShiiii posted...

mario2000 posted...

getting punished for violating a terms of service != discrimination

why can't rightists understand this

If the terms of service said no slang or ebonics you'd cry foul.

No, I'd just not use slang or ebonics like I chose not to on my resume, LinkedIn profile, Careerbuilder profile, Monster profile, Indeed profile, Zip Recruiter profile, etc.

Let's also not pretend that using slang or ebonics is equal to hate speech.
---

CableZL posted...

Fart noises

---

So you have nothing else to say on the matter. Good to know.
---

How can companies tell me how I can wear my hair, we have an amendment against that right!

Too bad we don't have an amendment on what to can say.
---

RealBroShiiii posted...

mario2000 posted...

getting punished for violating a terms of service != discrimination

why can't rightists understand this

If the terms of service said no slang or ebonics you'd cry foul.

link me to a terms of service that would say this
---

User Info: RealBroShiiii

New User
User Since: Aug 2018
Karma: 4
Active Posts: 44

where the fuck are these people coming from
---

I was hoping he'd move on with the discussion, but no.
---

The depressing thing is that as time goes by, and corporations become more and more powerful and governments less so, and we eventually end up in a dystopian cyber punk reality, it won't matter that free speech is about freedom from government censorship, because it's the corporations that will be in control.
---

And another thing liberals forget, free speech is supposed to be sacred. It came before all this crap about accepting what you wanna call yourself.

It should be the first thing you fight for.

Now it's you can be whatever you want but you can only say this and that.
---

RealBroShiiii posted...

And another thing liberals forget, free speech is supposed to be sacred. It came before all this crap about accepting what you wanna call yourself.

It should be the first thing you fight for.

Now it's you can be whatever you want but you can only say this and that.

Private Companies have never been required to uphold free speech. Literally hating the free market.
---

"oh no i can't spout racial slurs openly without getting in trouble, the world is gonna become a dystopian cyberpunk reality"

are you people fucking serious
---

mario2000 posted...

"oh no i can't spout racial slurs openly without getting in trouble, the world is gonna become a dystopian cyberpunk reality"

are you people fucking serious

I didn't say anything about racial slurs. >_>
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Private Companies have never been required to uphold free speech. Literally hating the free market

And you happily accept it. Yet fight for people to be able to wear those stupid ear lobe things.

The battle for free speech was already won any you've all given it up.
---

mario2000 posted...

"oh no i can't spout racial slurs openly without getting in trouble, the world is gonna become a dystopian cyberpunk reality"

are you people fucking serious

I didn't interpret what he said that way, but whatever.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

DeadSite posted...

RealBroShiiii posted...

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.

Except private entities can't discriminate either

That really depends. I can discriminate against you all I want.

You can, but if I can prove you have that has threatened my livelihood I would win in a court of law so

RealBroShiiii posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Private Companies have never been required to uphold free speech. Literally hating the free market

And you happily accept it. Yet fight for people to be able to wear those stupid ear lobe things.

The battle for free speech was already won any you've all given it up.

I like how instead of trying to have any sort of discussion you go right for making something up and attacking that.
---

also the corporations are already in control

they always have been
---

DeadSite posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

DeadSite posted...

RealBroShiiii posted...

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.

Except private entities can't discriminate either

That really depends. I can discriminate against you all I want.

You can, but if I can prove you have that has threatened my livelihood I would win in a court of law so

Sure. My point was just that there's an entire other conversation here that we aren't having. Not like it seems it would be particularly productive with all these guys saying "what about x"
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

DeadSite posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

DeadSite posted...

RealBroShiiii posted...

This is so stupid. It's like saying private entities can discriminate but the government can't.

Where did this idiocy come from? There's nothing about private entities in the Constitution.

Except private entities can't discriminate either

That really depends. I can discriminate against you all I want.

You can, but if I can prove you have that has threatened my livelihood I would win in a court of law so

Sure. My point was just that there's an entire other conversation here that we aren't having. Not like it seems it would be particularly productive with all these guys saying "what about x"

Oh no I agree, RealBro just made a really dumb point in general so I just thought I'd correct him

mario2000 posted...

User Info: RealBroShiiii

New User
User Since: Aug 2018
Karma: 4
Active Posts: 44

where the fuck are these people coming from

Hoth's penis.
---

If only these people who are fighting for Alex Jones fought for Net Neutrality. Might not have ended.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

If only these people who are fighting for Alex Jones fought for Net Neutrality. Might not have ended.

Heh
Ironic eh
---

By that logic, my neighbor can seize my guns since he doesn't work for the government.

--
---

FLOUR posted...

By that logic, my neighbor can seize my guns since he doesn't work for the government.

--

I guess if you say so he certainly can
---

Tmaster148 posted...

RealBroShiiii posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Private Companies have never been required to uphold free speech. Literally hating the free market

And you happily accept it. Yet fight for people to be able to wear those stupid ear lobe things.

The battle for free speech was already won any you've all given it up.

I like how instead of trying to have any sort of discussion you go right for making something up and attacking that.

The push and complaints about companies not hiring people with tattoos, piercings, "eccentric" hair isn't made up.

I'm pretty sure there was a story a few months ago about someone banning dreadlocks. And guess who all cried foul.
---

FLOUR posted...

By that logic, my neighbor can seize my guns since he doesn't work for the government.

--

Theft is illegal and he can receive punishments from the government for such.
---

FLOUR posted...

By that logic, my neighbor can seize my guns since he doesn't work for the government.

--

It's not that he can seize your guns, it's just that he's not violating the second amendment if he does. He's just a thief/burglar.
---

FLOUR posted...

By that logic, my neighbor can seize my guns since he doesn't work for the government.

--

Your logic is flawed, not the topic logic

RealBroShiiii posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

RealBroShiiii posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Private Companies have never been required to uphold free speech. Literally hating the free market

And you happily accept it. Yet fight for people to be able to wear those stupid ear lobe things.

The battle for free speech was already won any you've all given it up.

I like how instead of trying to have any sort of discussion you go right for making something up and attacking that.

The push and complaints about companies not hiring people with tattoos, piercings, "eccentric" hair isn't made up.

I'm pretty sure there was a story a few months ago about someone banning dreadlocks. And guess who all cried foul.

I'm pretty sure there was a story about a girl. She cried a river and drown the whole world. And while she looked so sad in photographs I absolutely love her, when she smiiiiles
---

DeadSite posted...

FLOUR posted...

By that logic, my neighbor can seize my guns since he doesn't work for the government.

--

Your logic is flawed, not the topic logic

No it's your logic that is flawed. Originally, all the first amendment was stating is that freedom of speech is a natural right and Congress (who is the only one that can make laws) can't do anything to restrict it. Now you have this watered down version where private companies are superior to the government and can do whatever they want. Heck, they can probably search my property without a search warrant since they're not bureaucrats.

--
---