In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Alex Jones and others SENSORED / BANNED SPEECH

7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
edited August 2018 in Politics
Hi guys!

All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    The First Amendment protects us again Government censorship.

    Private companies can set their own rules, and should be able to do so. The Federal Government stepping in to dictate to these private companies would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

    What's next? Well, if we have government stepping in, government will set the rules. Is that what we want?

    Let the market sort it out. If there is a need, it will be filled by private industry.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    Did you support the ending of net neutrality ?


    So many people define net neutrality so many different ways that I don't know what you mean.
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    The First Amendment protects us again Government censorship.

    Private companies can set their own rules, and should be able to do so. The Federal Government stepping in to dictate to these private companies would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

    What's next? Well, if we have government stepping in, government will set the rules. Is that what we want?

    Let the market sort it out. If there is a need, it will be filled by private industry.


    Normally, that would be my reaction to most things straight out the gate. However, in this case, there is an argument to be made via anti-trust laws. As Google and youtube and Facebook and so on dominate so much of the internet that there will not be any competition coming along to pick up the slack. The people who will put the conservative speech on the internet in place of these Titans of the industry, will not have the means to service the kind of traffic that the big monopolistic cartel has been servicing. Relegating conservative speech to a very tiny boutique item.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    The First Amendment protects us again Government censorship.

    Private companies can set their own rules, and should be able to do so. The Federal Government stepping in to dictate to these private companies would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

    What's next? Well, if we have government stepping in, government will set the rules. Is that what we want?

    Let the market sort it out. If there is a need, it will be filled by private industry.


    Normally, that would be my reaction to most things straight out the gate. However, in this case, there is an argument to be made via anti-trust laws. As Google and youtube and Facebook and so on dominate so much of the internet that there will not be any competition coming along to pick up the slack. The people who will put the conservative speech on the internet in place of these Titans of the industry, will not have the means to service the kind of traffic that the big monopolistic cartel has been servicing. Relegating conservative speech to a very tiny boutique item.


    We had the same problem in the 70s and 80s.

    Then came Rush Limbaugh.

    Then came Fox News.

    The market will fill a need when one exists. No reason to beg big brother to come in a regulate something because we see a problem today. Tomorrow always come rather quickly.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We need the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights and The Constitution! Yeah I know now go ask the American Indians about peace treaties!

    We are nothing but what we ignore when we were given the right to self govern. The government circumvented the Constitution from the beginning.
    serf
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    We need the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights and The Constitution! Yeah I know now go ask the American Indians about peace treaties!

    We are nothing but what we ignore when we were given the right to self govern. The government circumvented the Constitution from the beginning.
    serf


    Not sure what you are saying, serf.

    Do you want the 1st Amendment to be applied to private institutions?

    Should the Presbyterians be required to allow muslim prayer during their services?

    If Twitter doesn't want anyone right of Elisabeth Warren to voice their opinion, so be it. It is called freedom.

    Live free by thinking free.

    Don't be a serf.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    We need the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights and The Constitution! Yeah I know now go ask the American Indians about peace treaties!

    We are nothing but what we ignore when we were given the right to self govern. The government circumvented the Constitution from the beginning.
    serf


    Not sure what you are saying, serf.

    Do you want the 1st Amendment to be applied to private institutions?

    Should the Presbyterians be required to allow muslim prayer during their services?

    If Twitter doesn't want anyone right of Elisabeth Warren to voice their opinion, so be it. It is called freedom.

    Live free by thinking free.

    Don't be a serf.


    Well why is a corporation considered a person under elections laws?Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

    Super-pacs and lobbyist control the Congress.Believe it on not, money not we the people control our destiny because we are led like sheep to the slaughter house.

    serf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[4]

    Sssion in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. [5] The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment. [6][7]
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    The First Amendment protects us again Government censorship.

    Private companies can set their own rules, and should be able to do so. The Federal Government stepping in to dictate to these private companies would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

    What's next? Well, if we have government stepping in, government will set the rules. Is that what we want?

    Let the market sort it out. If there is a need, it will be filled by private industry.


    Normally, that would be my reaction to most things straight out the gate. However, in this case, there is an argument to be made via anti-trust laws. As Google and youtube and Facebook and so on dominate so much of the internet that there will not be any competition coming along to pick up the slack. The people who will put the conservative speech on the internet in place of these Titans of the industry, will not have the means to service the kind of traffic that the big monopolistic cartel has been servicing. Relegating conservative speech to a very tiny boutique item.


    We had the same problem in the 70s and 80s.

    Then came Rush Limbaugh.

    Then came Fox News.

    The market will fill a need when one exists. No reason to beg big brother to come in a regulate something because we see a problem today. Tomorrow always come rather quickly.


    The country is a lot worse off now than it was back then. We are running out of time.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by serf
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    We need the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights and The Constitution! Yeah I know now go ask the American Indians about peace treaties!

    We are nothing but what we ignore when we were given the right to self govern. The government circumvented the Constitution from the beginning.
    serf


    Not sure what you are saying, serf.

    Do you want the 1st Amendment to be applied to private institutions?

    Should the Presbyterians be required to allow muslim prayer during their services?

    If Twitter doesn't want anyone right of Elisabeth Warren to voice their opinion, so be it. It is called freedom.

    Live free by thinking free.

    Don't be a serf.


    Well why is a corporation considered a person under elections laws?Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

    Super-pacs and lobbyist control the Congress.Believe it on not, money not we the people control our destiny because we are led like sheep to the slaughter house.

    serf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[4]

    Sssion in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. [5] The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment. [6][7]


    Have you ever read the first amendment?

    I don't see in it where it grants the power to government to dictate what a media organization chooses to publish or not to publish. Twitter is not a person. Twitter is a media outlet that would fall under the 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...'

    SCOTUS just ruled that Colorado was wrong to attempt to force a bakery to do something that violated the beliefs of its owner(s). What precedent is there that suggests Twitter must do something against the wishes of its owner(s)?

    Regarding Citizens United, why do you fall into the herd that believes corporations were granted personhood? The First Amendment simply states that congress cannot abridge freedom of speech or of the press. It is instructive to note that the 'right of the people' is only noted referencing peaceable assembly and petition government for a redress of grievances.

    Citizens United did not grant personhood to corporations. It only respected the limits upon Congress so clearly stated in Amendment 1.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    The First Amendment protects us again Government censorship.

    Private companies can set their own rules, and should be able to do so. The Federal Government stepping in to dictate to these private companies would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

    What's next? Well, if we have government stepping in, government will set the rules. Is that what we want?

    Let the market sort it out. If there is a need, it will be filled by private industry.


    Normally, that would be my reaction to most things straight out the gate. However, in this case, there is an argument to be made via anti-trust laws. As Google and youtube and Facebook and so on dominate so much of the internet that there will not be any competition coming along to pick up the slack. The people who will put the conservative speech on the internet in place of these Titans of the industry, will not have the means to service the kind of traffic that the big monopolistic cartel has been servicing. Relegating conservative speech to a very tiny boutique item.


    We had the same problem in the 70s and 80s.

    Then came Rush Limbaugh.

    Then came Fox News.

    The market will fill a need when one exists. No reason to beg big brother to come in a regulate something because we see a problem today. Tomorrow always come rather quickly.


    The country is a lot worse off now than it was back then. We are running out of time.


    We have been running out of time for the 45+ years I have been conscious of political and media manipulation. Perhaps we are approaching the precipice. I would suggest that the conflicting spheres of influence are just manipulating some to think so.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by serf
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    We need the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights and The Constitution! Yeah I know now go ask the American Indians about peace treaties!

    We are nothing but what we ignore when we were given the right to self govern. The government circumvented the Constitution from the beginning.
    serf


    Not sure what you are saying, serf.

    Do you want the 1st Amendment to be applied to private institutions?

    Should the Presbyterians be required to allow muslim prayer during their services?

    If Twitter doesn't want anyone right of Elisabeth Warren to voice their opinion, so be it. It is called freedom.

    Live free by thinking free.

    Don't be a serf.


    Well why is a corporation considered a person under elections laws?Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

    Super-pacs and lobbyist control the Congress.Believe it on not, money not we the people control our destiny because we are led like sheep to the slaughter house.



    serf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[4]

    Sssion in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. [5] The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment. [6][7]


    Have you ever read the first amendment?

    I don't see in it where it grants the power to government to dictate what a media organization chooses to publish or not to publish. Twitter is not a person. Twitter is a media outlet that would fall under the 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...'

    SCOTUS just ruled that Colorado was wrong to attempt to force a bakery to do something that violated the beliefs of its owner(s). What precedent is there that suggests Twitter must do something against the wishes of its owner(s)?

    Regarding Citizens United, why do you fall into the herd that believes corporations were granted personhood? The First Amendment simply states that congress cannot abridge freedom of speech or of the press. It is instructive to note that the 'right of the people' is only noted referencing peaceable assembly and petition government for a redress of grievances.

    Citizens United did not grant personhood to corporations. It only respected the limits upon Congress so clearly stated in Amendment 1.


    It's The Right for Super-Pacs to form under corporations That I am Stating as unfair to a free election process,Freedom of speech is an individual right when our forefathers made the Republic.

    They did not have huge corporations back then pouring billions of dollars to sway the public view back then along with lobbyist buying the votes in congress on individual bills of legislation.

    The business corporations are not Individuals persons for they cannot plead the the fifth amendment along with many other instances,they just cherry pick the ones they want to enforce their collective will on under justification of a new interpretation of the law for what a person can be. It's a nothing but a scheme to buy free elections.

    Just like Congress forgoing the Constitution to make and coin money to a Central bank by giving them the authority to do so just one time and then living under their ilk for over a hundred years of manipulation.

    serf
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    Did you support the ending of net neutrality ?


    Net neutrality, as I understand it having done very little research, means that google, for instance, cannot decide not to let you buy "internet space" from them based on what it is you want to publish. They are not allowed to treat you any differently than anybody else who seeks to buy "space" based on what you want to publish.

    Net Neutrality
    : the idea, principle, or requirement that Internet service providers should or must treat all Internet data as the same regardless of its kind, source, or destination
    ? a philosophical contest that's being fought under the banner of "net neutrality," a slogan that inspires rhetorical devotion but eludes precise definition. Broadly, it means everything on the Internet should be equally accessible?that the Internet should be a place where great ideas compete on equal terms with big money. ?Sarah Rabil

    Is this what we are talking about?
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    Hi guys!

    All the big internet monopolies have gotten together to silence Alex Jones and other right wing speech. Can / should gov. force them to respect the first amendment? What do you think? How do you feel? What's next?


    The First Amendment protects us again Government censorship.

    Private companies can set their own rules, and should be able to do so. The Federal Government stepping in to dictate to these private companies would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

    What's next? Well, if we have government stepping in, government will set the rules. Is that what we want?

    Let the market sort it out. If there is a need, it will be filled by private industry.


    Normally, that would be my reaction to most things straight out the gate. However, in this case, there is an argument to be made via anti-trust laws. As Google and youtube and Facebook and so on dominate so much of the internet that there will not be any competition coming along to pick up the slack. The people who will put the conservative speech on the internet in place of these Titans of the industry, will not have the means to service the kind of traffic that the big monopolistic cartel has been servicing. Relegating conservative speech to a very tiny boutique item.


    We had the same problem in the 70s and 80s.

    Then came Rush Limbaugh.

    Then came Fox News.

    The market will fill a need when one exists. No reason to beg big brother to come in a regulate something because we see a problem today. Tomorrow always come rather quickly.


    The country is a lot worse off now than it was back then. We are running out of time.


    We have been running out of time for the 45+ years I have been conscious of political and media manipulation. Perhaps we are approaching the precipice. I would suggest that the conflicting spheres of influence are just manipulating some to think so.




    In the 70's and 80's we were not tens of trillions of dollars in debt and running our entire government on Treasury Bond loans from China (communist murderers and scum).
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    It's The Right for Super-Pacs to form under corporations That I am Stating as unfair to a free election process,Freedom of speech is an individual right when our forefathers made the Republic.

    They did not have huge corporations back then pouring billions of dollars to sway the public view back then along with lobbyist buying the votes in congress on individual bills of legislation.

    The business corporations are not Individuals persons for they cannot plead the the fifth amendment along with many other instances,they just cherry pick the ones they want to enforce their collective will on under justification of a new interpretation of the law for what a person can be. It's a nothing but a scheme to buy free elections.

    Just like Congress forgoing the Constitution to make and coin money to a Central bank by giving them the authority to do so just one time and then living under their ilk for over a hundred years of manipulation.

    serf


    Again, please read the First Amendment.

    As stated by our founders, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. There is no mention of it being an individual right, merely a limitation upon the power of Congress. Citizens United re-affirmed that limitation.

    While the founders may not have envisioned large corporations spending money to sway elections, they were perfectly and painfully aware of the power of the news industry to do just that, yet they prohibited Congress from interfering with it.

    Perhaps they were just a bunch of ignorant boobs who believed that those who would vote would actually take an interest in what or who they were voting for and not believe the first flyer they read.

    They were 100% correct. McCain-Feingold was clearly unconstitutional, as at its core was the abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press. It did not matter whether those wishing to speak were individuals or, (as in this case) a 501(c) corporation, the United Auto Workers, or the Little Sisters of Charity. The ruling was not that these diverse entities were granted rights, it was that Congress was specifically prohibited from the regulations McCain-Feingold imposed.

    Apparently, you want government to protect you from the evil big corporations. Can't get my head around such a powerless and submissive view of life.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    In the 70's and 80's we were not tens of trillions of dollars in debt and running our entire government on Treasury Bond loans from China (communist murderers and scum).


    We did not have reverse cameras in our cars in the 70's and 80's.

    How does either this fact or our National debt affect the freedom of speech?
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    It's The Right for Super-Pacs to form under corporations That I am Stating as unfair to a free election process,Freedom of speech is an individual right when our forefathers made the Republic.

    They did not have huge corporations back then pouring billions of dollars to sway the public view back then along with lobbyist buying the votes in congress on individual bills of legislation.

    The business corporations are not Individuals persons for they cannot plead the the fifth amendment along with many other instances,they just cherry pick the ones they want to enforce their collective will on under justification of a new interpretation of the law for what a person can be. It's a nothing but a scheme to buy free elections.

    Just like Congress forgoing the Constitution to make and coin money to a Central bank by giving them the authority to do so just one time and then living under their ilk for over a hundred years of manipulation.

    serf


    Again, please read the First Amendment.

    As stated by our founders, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. There is no mention of it being an individual right, merely a limitation upon the power of Congress. Citizens United re-affirmed that limitation.

    While the founders may not have envisioned large corporations spending money to sway elections, they were perfectly and painfully aware of the power of the news industry to do just that, yet they prohibited Congress from interfering with it.

    Perhaps they were just a bunch of ignorant boobs who believed that those who would vote would actually take an interest in what or who they were voting for and not believe the first flyer they read.

    They were 100% correct. McCain-Feingold was clearly unconstitutional, as at its core was the abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press. It did not matter whether those wishing to speak were individuals or, (as in this case) a 501(c) corporation, the United Auto Workers, or the Little Sisters of Charity. The ruling was not that these diverse entities were granted rights, it was that Congress was specifically prohibited from the regulations McCain-Feingold imposed.

    Apparently, you want government to protect you from the evil big corporations. Can't get my head around such a powerless and submissive view of life.


    It distorts the power of a free and fair election in my opinion. Power and wealth have always been used to gain influence over mankind's governments. The organized has always used the disorganized.


    They can voice their opinion (Groups) on any subject they so desire, just not allowed as a group to contribute to political campaigns. i.e Super-Pac's.

    Most of The Supreme Court rulings recorded are swayed by power and money and not what is valid truths. They have desecrated the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are flawed and Their power is absolute short of a rebellion.

    The American Indians know it as well as The American Japanese and that is just wrong and the system is broke. And don't blame it on one race it's humanity as a whole that is flawed not the Words of our Treasured Documents of The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    serf
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The reason that conservatives could enjoy social media for so long was net neutrality. Now that it is gone, I guess we have no choice but to have very little voice. I guess we can only hope that more talk radio pops up, because I guarantee you that there are no multi-billionaires that are going to get into social media for conservatives. They are the swamp.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    The reason that conservatives could enjoy social media for so long was net neutrality. Now that it is gone, I guess we have no choice but to have very little voice. I guess we can only hope that more talk radio pops up, because I guarantee you that there are no multi-billionaires that are going to get into social media for conservatives. They are the swamp.


    We have never had 'net neutrality' as it is commonly defined. The concept as pushed by the left is that internet providers cannot charge more money for increased access/bandwidth, relegating those that do not pay the premium to the background. I am sure there is more to it that that, but it does not address content, merely access and speed.

    Even with 'net neutrality' Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. would be able to set their own rules as to who and what can use their individual platform.

    You appear to an advocate for the failed notion of 'equal time' as was at least attempted to be imposed upon the major television networks some decades past. It was a blatant failure for the obvious reason that one can define an opposing view as one wishes, and merely advance a false narrative claiming it to be in opposition where in the big picture it either is the same with different wording, or presented in such a objectionable manner that it serves the same ends.

    There are damn few things that are improved by Government interference.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • serfserf Member Posts: 9,217 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
    The reason that conservatives could enjoy social media for so long was net neutrality. Now that it is gone, I guess we have no choice but to have very little voice. I guess we can only hope that more talk radio pops up, because I guarantee you that there are no multi-billionaires that are going to get into social media for conservatives. They are the swamp.


    We have never had 'net neutrality' as it is commonly defined. The concept as pushed by the left is that internet providers cannot charge more money for increased access/bandwidth, relegating those that do not pay the premium to the background. I am sure there is more to it that that, but it does not address content, merely access and speed.

    Even with 'net neutrality' Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. would be able to set their own rules as to who and what can use their individual platform.

    You appear to an advocate for the failed notion of 'equal time' as was at least attempted to be imposed upon the major television networks some decades past. It was a blatant failure for the obvious reason that one can define an opposing view as one wishes, and merely advance a false narrative claiming it to be in opposition where in the big picture it either is the same with different wording, or presented in such a objectionable manner that it serves the same ends.

    There are damn few things that are improved by Government interference.


    The election system is rigged with Political action committees giving wads of money to individuals to run for office. Not The right for free speech to be impinged on!

    Yet with smoke and mirrors, they hide behind the First Amendment as a corporation being a person so the Supreme court can rule on it as legal!

    It's a sham and outrageous manipulation of a free election process for individuals only to vote and give contributions on a one to one relationship with in limits for equality.

    serf

    PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,367 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The consensus is companies can "do what they will". OK, there is also this:

    David Horowitz: Visa, Mastercard Cut Off Payments to My Think Tank Based on SPLC ?Hate Group? Label

    The Freedom Center is the next target of the SPLC, and they are using Mastercard and Visa again in their attempt to shut down conservative voices. In an email sent to supporters, Horowitz outlined how the SPLC had convinced Mastercard and Visa to block the Freedom Center from receiving payments and donations via credit card. In the email, Horowitz requested that supporters send donations via check to a P.O. Box.

    https://tinyurl.com/Shutup-conservatives

    Conservative groups are being "shutup",, is the same TRUE for liberal groups,, maybe there isn't a liberal hate group?[:D]
  • mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,719 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by serf
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by serf

    We need the Supreme Court to interpret the Bill of Rights and The Constitution! Yeah I know now go ask the American Indians about peace treaties!

    We are nothing but what we ignore when we were given the right to self govern. The government circumvented the Constitution from the beginning.
    serf


    Not sure what you are saying, serf.

    Do you want the 1st Amendment to be applied to private institutions?

    Should the Presbyterians be required to allow muslim prayer during their services?

    If Twitter doesn't want anyone right of Elisabeth Warren to voice their opinion, so be it. It is called freedom.

    Live free by thinking free.

    Don't be a serf.


    Well why is a corporation considered a person under elections laws?Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

    Super-pacs and lobbyist control the Congress.Believe it on not, money not we the people control our destiny because we are led like sheep to the slaughter house.

    serf
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[4]

    Sssion in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. [5] The Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or the Fourteenth Amendment. [6][7]


    The problem is that they do not play by the same rules. The FCC Federal Communications Commission, is just that, it is supposed to allow for fair play when it comes to communications.


    At first, it was so larger players didn't step on the smaller stations and run them out.

    Same holds for internet. YES, FCC should intervene.
  • mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,719 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus

    Again, please read the First Amendment.

    As stated by our founders, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. There is no mention of it being an individual right, merely a limitation upon the power of Congress. Citizens United re-affirmed that limitation.

    While the founders may not have envisioned large corporations spending money to sway elections, they were perfectly and painfully aware of the power of the news industry to do just that, yet they prohibited Congress from interfering with it.


    Apparently, you want government to protect you from the evil big corporations. Can't get my head around such a powerless and submissive view of life.


    And yet the FCC exists for a purpose, what may that be? They can sensor and remove you from the air for saying "bad words".


    They have also picked the winners and losers when it comes to communications. The local municipalities also picked winners and losers and abolished competition.

    The FCC under the Obama appointed chair, has allowed larger conglomerates to suck up the smaller independent outlets, which had been forbidden in the past.

    Why should a small handful of elite have total control over the media backed and supported and promoted by the agency that is supposed to allow the small op to thrive without getting squashed like a bug?

    Maybe we should just do away with the FCC all together then, let the big dollars and highest output broadcast towers rule the day.

    And since cable is a monopoly, let them run amuck too.

    I had a big run in with Charter. They decided to run ads on MY website. That's right, if someone visited my website, Charter hired a company to run their own money making ads on my bought and paid for internet real estate. I suppose you think that is OK too. After all, you don't want the FCC involved.

    Also, note that if you type a non existent web address in your web browser, "enhanced search results" will hijack your browser. I got Comcast in hot water over that one.

    Yes, the FCC exists to maintain fair play over government regulated media outlets. Private company must obey the laws just like everybody else.

    Alex Jones brought alot of good info, but also brought alot of crap. I liked that he drew the attention away from the real credible outlets, kindof like the NRA draws the heat.

    I was not a fan of his show.
  • droptopdroptop Member Posts: 8,367 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by droptop
    The consensus is companies can "do what they will". OK, there is also this:

    David Horowitz: Visa, Mastercard Cut Off Payments to My Think Tank Based on SPLC ?Hate Group? Label

    The Freedom Center is the next target of the SPLC, and they are using Mastercard and Visa again in their attempt to shut down conservative voices. In an email sent to supporters, Horowitz outlined how the SPLC had convinced Mastercard and Visa to block the Freedom Center from receiving payments and donations via credit card. In the email, Horowitz requested that supporters send donations via check to a P.O. Box.

    https://tinyurl.com/Shutup-conservatives

    Conservative groups are being "shutup",, is the same TRUE for liberal groups,, maybe there isn't a liberal hate group?[:D]

    Already, another win,,
    The David Horowitz Freedom Center has had its ability to accept credit card donations restored after the initial decision to financially blacklist the organization was made by payment processor Worldpay allegedly at the request of Mastercard. Horowitz credits Breitbart News and the Drudge Report for bringing attention to the story on Friday.
    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/25/david-horowitz-wins-credit-card-donation-showdown-credits-breitbart-drudge/
  • TfloggerTflogger Member Posts: 3,276 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Too me this is like the phone company disconnecting people they don't like.
  • 7.62x39Lover7.62x39Lover Member Posts: 3,939 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Tflogger
    Too me this is like the phone company disconnecting people they don't like.


    They are looking at suing these big internet monopolies through anti-trust laws and also through laws regarding public utilities.

    We shall see what happens.

    The more I think about this the less gov. interference I want to see. The crux of the problem that I see is that I don't know how conservatives are going to be able to recover their internet presence from the force of these internet jugernauts pushing them off of the internet.
  • mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,719 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, oblama appointed Ajit Varadaraj Pai as FCC chair. Hope Trump has made changes.

    This is a govt institution that is supposed to protect free and fair play, but alas, not so.
Sign In or Register to comment.