Crazy Ass Leftists hate free speech and your First Amendment rights

Please tell us more about my beliefs Originally Posted by HDGristle

you first. you seem to know about everyone else's beliefs. what's yours?

No. I must insist that we defer to the OP to share his wisened take.

But thanks for the consideration. It touches me deeply that you care. I'm content to listen first and understand his views.

No. I must insist that we defer to the OP to share his wisened take.

But thanks for the consideration. It touches me deeply that you care. I'm content to listen first and understand his views. Originally Posted by HDGristle

and if berryberry tells you what you don't want to hear? what then?


oh snap! he does that every day.



bahahahaaaa

you first. you seem to know about everyone else's beliefs. what's yours? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

He won't give an honest answer. It's all part of his schtick. It's how he tries to disrupt threads he doesn't like.

It should be very simple for every American to support the First Amendment and be anti censorship, yet you have these leftists refusing to do so. So telling

Actually, berry, I only have a few things which I see as exceptions.

The government shouldn't regulate speech unless that speech poses a clear and present danger of significant harm. There's nuance required there as to what that means.

This isn't about defamation, there's a place for that in civil law.

It isn't about rooting out fraud. That's not protected speech.

I don't care if a social media site censors you at all, unless the government ordered or coerced it. And if it does, sue them and the government and hold them accountable.

Bitching about it on a hooker board is a luxury, not a right.

... Kinda hard to find any fault with the above post.

However - I'm surely NOT comfortable with "The Government"
deciding WHICH "speech" is the "Clear and present danger"...

Same-way me problem with Gun Control is the simple fact
that I don't want the Government to be the onley ones with guns.

#### Salty

Understandable

Actually, berry, I only have a few things which I see as exceptions.

The government shouldn't regulate speech unless that speech poses a clear and present danger of significant harm. There's nuance required there as to what that means.

This isn't about defamation, there's a place for that in civil law.

It isn't about rooting out fraud. That's not protected speech.

I don't care if a social media site censors you at all, unless the government ordered or coerced it. And if it does, sue them and the government and hold them accountable.

Bitching about it on a hooker board is a luxury, not a right. Originally Posted by HDGristle

you mean like this? looks like to Gov in in the meme censorship game. this goes back to 2016 .. and the DOJ which has no case under free speech just won't let this go. Why?



Twitter troll's election interference trial delayed after alleged witness intimidation

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...s-intimidation


Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/socia...ation-campaign


Defendant Unlawfully Used Social Media to Deprive Individuals of Their Right to Vote




the SPLC .. a known racist leftist organization which seems to dictate to the DOJ on what is racist .. caused a postponement of the trial .. wait for it .. witness intimidation.



bahahaha



you can't make this shit up.



https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...ng-faces-trial


'Alt-Right' Disinformation King Faces Trial

https://reason.com/2023/02/13/can-th...tter-trolling/



Defendant Unlawfully Used Social Media to Deprive Individuals of Their Right to Vote


In a first-of-its-kind case, the Justice Department is prosecuting an internet troll, using a Reconstruction-era law to claim that a series of misleading social media memes were an attempt to "deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote."


pretty sure you'd agree this is a vastly excessive overreach by the DOJ, yes?

Actually, berry, I only have a few things which I see as exceptions.

The government shouldn't regulate speech unless that speech poses a clear and present danger of significant harm. There's nuance required there as to what that means.

This isn't about defamation, there's a place for that in civil law.

It isn't about rooting out fraud. That's not protected speech.

I don't care if a social media site censors you at all, unless the government ordered or coerced it. And if it does, sue them and the government and hold them accountable.

Bitching about it on a hooker board is a luxury, not a right. Originally Posted by HDGristle

So do you agree then with posts 1, 2 and 4 that show specific examples of Democrats being pro censorship and anti first amendment and do you criticize those individuals for being wrong and advocating ignoring the constitution,?

I have no comments on Turley's opinion. Or Glenn Greenwald's opinion. And I'd like to see transcripts of what was said by Kelly vs Massie's account of it.

Any other questions?

I have no comments on Turley's opinion. Or Glenn Greenwald's opinion. And I'd like to see transcripts of what was said by Kelly vs Massie's account of it.

Any other questions? Originally Posted by HDGristle

Just as I suspected. You couched your previous response and given your stance on the scenarios both Turley and Greenwald described, you support censorship and don't fully believe in the first amendment.

Any individual who believes in the first amendment and is against censorship would clearly be able to see the issues Turley and Greenwald described and criticize those leftists pushing that censorship

I'm interested in the facts. Not other people's opinions or takes.

That you can't or choose not to see that and have to constantly infer and setup asinine binaries shows a deeply ingrained need to snap react. It's wonderful you're comfortable with hot takes and filling in gaps and ambiguity with your feelings.

Stop pretending that I or anyone else need to do that. Seeking more or direct context rather than swallowing the opinions that fit your preferred social/political narratives is the basis of thinking for yourself.

Note that I haven't expressed doubt or said it didn't happen. Not surprising that you rush to judgment while I require a more thorough and methodical review.

You aren't even giving me a chance to get to the same place. Just flailing to attack anything that doesn't immediately conform to your opinion. You'll recall we were largely aligned on the expected outcome of the Rittenhouse trial despite you making your mind up before the trial and I, only after seeing both the prosecution and defense cases.

Why isn't that possible here? Is it because you're not really interested in discussion or running things to ground? (Those are rhetorical)

Are you able to provide direct evidence of Kelly's comments rather than a partisan's account? Help me see what you're seeing.

I'm interested in the facts. Not other people's opinions or takes.
.
.
.

Note that I haven't expressed doubt or said it didn't happen. Not surprising that you rush to judgment while I require a more thorough and methodical review.

.
.
.


Are you able to provide direct evidence of Kelly's comments rather than a partisan's account? Help me see what you're seeing. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Well if you look at each case, the facts are clear cut. Anyone who fully supports the first amendment and is anti censorship should be able to easily agree that:

In Turley's story, it was wrong for democrats attacking journalists who broke the story of government censorship efforts

In Greenwald's stories, it is wrong and illegal for 3 different leading Democrats making the most deranged, McCarthyite statements imaginable about how crucial it is that we allow the US Security State to help censor the internet, and anyone who disagrees is an agent of Putin and Xi

As to the statement from Senator Mark Kelly Calling For Social Media Censorship To Prevent Bank Runs - are you seriously trying to deny this didn't happen? It was reported by multiple sources and Kelly himself never denied making the statement. Do you support his illegal request?

And then of course there is the last example The Waco Kid shared. Do you support Senile Biden's DOJ trying to prosecute someone for posting memes they didn't like? Anyone who fully supports the first amendment would find the DOJ,'s actions reprehensible

Turley and Greenwald aren't reporting facts here. The underlying facts shared do point towards troubling concerns, but as a matter of course I don't care about their opinions.

Your amplification of opinions with an anti-left message, however, is an example of why we need to look closer at the full scope. Let's look at the totality of evidence instead of cherry picking only what supports our preferred nsrratives. That covers point 1 and 2.

Point 3, I'd like to know what Kelly actually said and in proper context with the rest of the conversation instead of partisan takes on it. If he suggested and meant what you feel he did, then I would fully disagree with him.

Final point, no, not for memes they don't like. Not liking something isn't a legal justification. So if that is all there is it's inappropriate and a waste of time. But if there's another element involved with legitimate legal justification, if a law was broken and there's a realistic expectation of securing a conviction they need to honor their oaths and pursue it.

That said, you're still posturing and still trying to insert sunk premises and baited binaries.

Turkey and Greenwald shared their opinion on factual stories . There is no disputing the facts in those cases so again anyone who fully supports the first amendment and is anti censorship should be able to easily agree those Democrats were completely in the wrong

As to Kelly, there is NO context that would allow government censorship of social media comments that might prevent bank runs. Anyone who believes in the first amendment knows that.