The Next President is...

[HeloDude]

54 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, cause tech companies give a fuck what the Feds want all the time. It’s also not censoring when you’re free to go to another platform and say whatever you want. You know, for the six minutes you guys were on Parler and learned that the tech giants also own all the major cloud hosting services.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/fbi-and-apple-are-poised-for-another-privacy-disagreement.html

So I’m confused…should businesses have to bake the cake or not?  Since someone can go to a different bakery…

[Sua Sponte]

18 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So I’m confused…should businesses have to bake the cake or not?  Since someone can go to a different bakery…

Standard

Is someone refusing to bake a cake because they’re being discriminatory over a protected class or someone or is someone just refusing to bake a cake due to it violating their own protected class? The SCOTUS didn’t take a broad interpretation in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission for good reason.

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

The government isn’t deciding, the owners of the social media platforms are. Also, the First Amendment does not protect against knowingly false statement of fact. If that was the case, then explain why the Kraken Legal Team facing possible sanctions up to disbarment for their inherently bad faith voter fraud lawsuits.  

Dude, we are not talking about a legal case or the requirements that a law team is bound to abide by in a court of law. We are talking average and normal people posting on social media that may have the government flagging their speech as not correct. 
 

That is a problem. The fact that you don’t see that as a problem is very telling. 
 

Like I said, I don’t care if they are spewing BS about COVID, saying the earth is flat, or even hate speech. The fact is, the government has no legal right to play any part in deciding what is allowed to be said and what is not. 
 

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258
“What Type of Speech Is Not Protected by the First Amendment?”

Saying you got 5G from a Covid vax, no matter how wrong that is, is not in there.

 

 

[BashiChuni]

if donald trump's administration was flagging speech they disagreed with across all social media platforms Sue Sponte and the left would lose a fucking gasket.

jesus christ the fact people aren't pissed about this gives me zero hope (among other things) for the survival of our "democracy"

[brickhistory]

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

1. Wasn’t the “laptop story” coming from someone who was recently had their law license suspended in two separate jurisdictions? Hmmm.   

2. Who gets to decide what’s said their platform? The owner of said platform. Don’t like it? You’re free to make your own.
 

3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/15/georgias-raffensperger-calls-firing-fulton-election-officials/7983338002/

“Three separate audits of Georgia's 2020 election results found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”

4. https://apnews.com/article/f0c36df59ee1069d65aa6a70a22d88cc
 

“CLAIM: Arizona’s largest county in the 2020 election received and counted 74,000 mail-in ballots that had no record of ever being sent out to voters.

THE FACTS: False. The claim mischaracterizes reports that are intended to help political parties track early voters for their get-out-the-vote efforts, not tally mail-in ballots through Election Day. The reports don’t represent all mail-in ballots sent out and received, so the numbers aren’t expected to match up, according to Maricopa County officials and outside experts. 

“We have 74,243 mail-in ballots where there is no clear record of them being sent,” Logan said at a meeting livestreamed at Arizona’s Capitol on Thursday. “That could be something where documentation wasn’t done right. There’s a clerical issue. There’s not proper things there, but I think when we’ve got 74,000, it merits knocking on a door and validating some of this information.”

Logan based his false claim on two types of early voting reports issued by Maricopa County: EV32 files and EV33 files. He claimed that EV32 files are “supposed to give a record of when a mail-in ballot is sent” and EV33 files are “supposed to give a record of when the mail-in ballot is received.”

That’s not accurate, according to Maricopa County officials, who tweeted on Friday that “the EV32 Returns & EV33 files are not the proper files to refer to for a complete accumulating of all early ballots sent and received.”

Instead, the EV32 and EV33 files are reports created for political parties to aid them in their get-out-the-vote efforts during early voting, according to Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser at the Democracy Fund and a former Maricopa County elections official. Arizona law requires county recorders to provide this data to political parties and candidates, Patrick said.”

6. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/04/gasoline-prices-gop-biden-497947
 

“It’s an old tactic employed by opposition parties to blame sitting presidents when fuel prices rise on their watch — and one that Republicans unsuccessfully tried to wield against Barack Obama during a recovering economy a decade ago. This time, they are pointing to Biden's ambitious climate change plans, his pause on leases for new oil wells on federal lands, and his cancellation of the permits for the Keystone XL pipeline as the culprits, although none of those steps have had any immediate impact on what motorists pay at the pump.

Experts largely agree that the White House usually has little to do with short-term moves in gasoline prices, which are a factor of global oil prices, U.S. refinery operations, and — especially this year — a sharp jump in demand from drivers as people emerge from lockdowns and travel resumes.“

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/16/hunter-biden-probe-prosecutor-499782

Quote

Last summer, federal officials in Delaware investigating Hunter Biden faced a dilemma. The probe had reached a point where prosecutors could have sought search warrants and issued a flurry of grand jury subpoenas. Some officials involved in the case wanted to do just that. Others urged caution. They advised Delaware’s U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, to avoid taking any actions that could alert the public to the existence of the case in the middle of a presidential election.

Maricopa County officials, the same ones who fought in court to prevent, then stop any audit, say the results being found is wrong.  Totally legit.  Hmmm?

 

So is the incumbent responsible for what happens on his watch?  Pretty sure the answer is yes.

And the government "asking" private companies to censor citizens on the government's behalf seems totally not a bad thing.  Especially since the government can sue said company into oblivion with lawsuit after lawsuit, regulation after regulation.  Sure, the company can do what it wants.

 

But I do admit twitter is a more cheery place now.  So you do you.

[Sua Sponte]

11 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Dude, we are not talking about a legal case or the requirements that a law team is bound to abide by in a court of law. We are talking average and normal people posting on social media that may have the government flagging their speech as not correct. 
 

That is a problem. The fact that you don’t see that as a problem is very telling. 
 

Like I said, I don’t care if they are spewing BS about COVID, saying the earth is flat, or even hate speech. The fact is, the government has no legal right to play any part in deciding what is allowed to be said and what is not. 
 

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-type-of-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment-34258
“What Type of Speech Is Not Protected by the First Amendment?”

Saying you got 5G from a Covid vax, no matter how wrong that is, is not in there.

 

 

The “law team” was spewing bullshit of rampant voter fraud through the media despite little to no evidence, which caused them to lose every lawsuit they filed. Said lawsuits were filed in bad faith based on their “free speech,” and are now facing some very serious professional implications because of their “free speech” isn’t so protected.

The irony is the fact that a good majority of you are in the military, the one organization that can severely suppress free speech.

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/16/hunter-biden-probe-prosecutor-499782

Maricopa County officials, the same ones who fought in court to prevent, then stop any audit, say the results being found is wrong.  Totally legit.  Hmmm?

 

So is the incumbent responsible for what happens on his watch?  Pretty sure the answer is yes.

And the government "asking" private companies to censor citizens on the government's behalf seems totally not a bad thing.  Especially since the government can sue said company into oblivion with lawsuit after lawsuit, regulation after regulation.  Sure, the company can do what it wants.

 

But I do admit twitter is a more cheery place now.  So you do you.

I don’t really read your echo chamber comments. I’m honestly surprised you don’t just post a meme without any rebuttal.

[Sua Sponte]

9 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

if donald trump's administration was flagging speech they disagreed with across all social media platforms Sue Sponte and the left would lose a fucking gasket.

jesus christ the fact people aren't pissed about this gives me zero hope (among other things) for the survival of our "democracy"

We get it war hawk, America is being eroded. Better buy that ranch in Wyoming and to surround yourself with your conservative Boomer friends.

[Sua Sponte]

15 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

if donald trump's administration was flagging speech they disagreed with across all social media platforms Sue Sponte and the left would lose a fucking gasket.

jesus christ the fact people aren't pissed about this gives me zero hope (among other things) for the survival of our "democracy"

Yeah, Trump just had the DOJ via lapdog Barr secretly subpoena his enemies data, including his own attorney. That’s not insane at all.

https://apnews.com/article/1252749aa9ad526cc01d633949bd9b5a

[kaputt]

4 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

The “law team” was spewing bullshit of rampant voter fraud through the media despite little to no evidence, which caused them to lose every lawsuit they filed. Said lawsuits were filed in bad faith based on their “free speech,” and are now facing some very serious professional implications because of their “free speech” isn’t so protected.

The irony is the fact that a good majority of you are in the military, the one organization that can severely suppress free speech.

Clown post brotha. 
 

No one is fucking talking about or defending Trump’s legal team anywhere in here. The only one who brought that up is you, and I already addressed how that is in no way related to the situation at hand.  
 

And that’s rich, your irony comment. Of course the military is not a “free society”. The irony of that has existed, and jokes have been made about that, for decades now. But there is one thing that the military supports and that is the Constitution. Which apparently is something you appear to wipe your ass with, 1st amendment in particular.  

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Where did the government say they were going to levy legal action against the tech giants if they didn’t “censor” free speech?

From Diane Feinstein:

“There are going to have to be some controls,” she said. “I’ve said, 'If you don’t control your platform, we’re going to have to do something about it.' I am hopeful that they will."

You're not this stupid

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, kaputt said:

Clown post brotha. 
 

No one is fucking talking about or defending Trump’s legal team anywhere in here. The only one who brought that up is you, and I already addressed how that is in no way related to the situation at hand.  
 

And that’s rich, your irony comment. Of course the military is not a “free society”. The irony of that has existed, and jokes have been made about that, for decades now. But there is one thing that the military supports and that is the Constitution. Which apparently is something you appear to wipe your ass with, 1st amendment in particular.  

Of course you’re not talking about or defending the legal team, because you know what they did was wrong….now. The general consensus here was a different tune a few months ago. 
 

You can’t get past the fact it’s not a First Amendment violation because the government isn’t directly doing the censoring. And yes, big tech tells the government to fuck off because they have the money and legal resources to do so.  Guess what? Don’t like it? Fucking leave the platform, that’s your at will right.

[Sua Sponte]

4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

From Diane Feinstein:

“There are going to have to be some controls,” she said. “I’ve said, 'If you don’t control your platform, we’re going to have to do something about it.' I am hopeful that they will."

You're not this stupid

Apparently you are this stupid.

You take a quote from one of the most batshit crazy people in the Senate who’s trying to rile up her base. It’s never going to be allow for the government to directly control through a private company freedom of speech. That’s SCOTUS case someone posted above held that in the opinion.

She can say, and try, to pass as much legislation as she wants and it’ll be legally challenged in the SCOTUS.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Sua Sponte

[SurelySerious]

Yeah, cause tech companies give a what the Feds want all the time. It’s also not censoring when you’re free to go to another platform and say whatever you want. You know, for the six minutes you guys were on Parler and learned that the tech giants also own all the major cloud hosting services.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/fbi-and-apple-are-poised-for-another-privacy-disagreement.html

So your voice in the town square getting silenced at government order isn’t restriction of speech, got it.

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

So your voice in the town square getting silenced at government order isn’t restriction of speech, got it.

Is the town square owned by the Government or Facebook/Twitter?

[Lord Ratner]

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Apparently you are this stupid.

You take a quote from one of the most batshit crazy people in the Senate who’s trying to rile up her base. It’s never going to be allow for the government to directly control through a private company freedom of speech. That’s SCOTUS case someone posted above held that in the opinion.

How crazy a senator might be (and she's hardly near the top of that list) is irrelevant.

 

If you can't see how that statement, from one of the highest levels of government possible, is demonstrative of the government threatening a private entity to do their bidding, then you're even drunker than I thought.

 

The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[Sua Sponte]

11 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide. 

So, are they flagging them when they’re working or in their off time? Political officials can block critics, who are their constituents, on their personal social media, and it’s not a First Amendment violation.

https://apnews.com/article/d314927f2b131fa285df4221448fd4ff
 

If it’s a public platform, that’s paid for by tax dollars, I agree. If it’s a private platform, they can do what they want. Despite what you want to believe, Big Tech is fully within their right to tell the Feds to fuck off. 

[kaputt]

21 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Of course you’re not talking about or defending the legal team, because you know what they did was wrong….now. The general consensus here was a different tune a few months ago. 
 

You can’t get past the fact it’s not a First Amendment violation because the government isn’t directly doing the censoring. And yes, big tech tells the government to fuck off because they have the money and legal resources to do so.  Guess what? Don’t like it? Fucking leave the platform, that’s your at will right.

 

I haven’t defended a single Trump election fraud claim on here, but thanks for painting with your broad brush.

You can keep repeating over and over that the government being involved in the censorship of speech isn’t a violation of the first amendment, it doesn’t make you correct.  
 

Not only is this a giant over reach of government power, the alignment of a corporate entity and the government, followed by that entity executing the will of the government, sure sounds a lot like Fascism. 
 

 

[SurelySerious]

Is the town square owned by the Government or Facebook/Twitter?

You’re really not making the connection.

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, kaputt said:

 

I haven’t defended a single Trump election fraud claim on here, but thanks for painting with your broad brush.

You can keep repeating over and over that the government being involved in the censorship of speech isn’t a violation of the first amendment, it doesn’t make you correct.  
 

Not only is this a giant over reach of government power, the alignment of a corporate entity and the government, followed by that entity executing the will of the government, sure sounds a lot like Fascism. 
 

 

Sweet, I await to read your brief on the lawsuit you’re going to file against the Feds for this atrocious overreach and First Amendment violation.

[Lord Ratner]

13 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

So, are they flagging them when they’re working or in their off time? Political officials can block critics, who are their constituents, on their personal social media, and it’s not a First Amendment violation.

https://apnews.com/article/d314927f2b131fa285df4221448fd4ff
 

If it’s a public platform, that’s paid for by tax dollars, I agree. If it’s a private platform, they can do what they want. Despite what you want to believe, Big Tech is fully within their right to tell the Feds to fuck off. 

From Sullivan v Rhode Island:

 

"It is true that appellants' books have not *67 been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions—the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation—the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable" and succeeded in its aim.[7] We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.[8]"

 

Additionally:

 

"It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was "free" to ignore the Commission's notices, in the sense that his refusal to "cooperate" would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact—and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us— that Silverstein's compliance with the Commission's directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein's reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule."

 

But you just get off on being the contrarian here it seems, so I don't expect you to see the parallels. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[SurelySerious]

Sweet, I await to read your brief on the lawsuit you’re going to file against the Feds for this atrocious overreach and First Amendment violation.

Since you’re so laissez faire, what do you consider first amendment overreach?

[Sua Sponte]

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

 “People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.”

Has the government threatened Big Tech with criminal proceedings if they don’t comply with their flagging? 

[Sua Sponte]

11 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Since you’re so laissez faire, what do you consider first amendment overreach?

Me on the Internet - “I wonder if Lindsey “Lady G” Graham wears his girl wig when he’s being bottomed?”

Me - “What happened to my Internet?”

Random Dude - “Oh, the DOJ threatened your Internet provider with criminal indictments if they didn’t stop your Internet access because of what you said about a member of Congress.”

[hockeydork]

On 7/15/2021 at 10:28 AM, Negatory said:

This illustrates my point even more. If middle class people won’t do it, why would people who actually have no money?

In my experience, unless you’re getting significantly better quality for the higher cost, people dgaf where things are produced. They’ll bitch and moan about China, but it is definitely not in the vast majority of American’s minds or capabilities to actually give a damn.

I know the thread has moved on but yes. If you are all for Capitalism and the free market, well than the free market has decided that they were better off tapping the person in China who will assemble your iphone for half the wage (right or wrong) as an any American would be willing to, and you need to stop complaining about how China "stole our jobs" (both sides do this and use it as a political "rile up the masses" and get some votes talking point). They didn't steal it, we served it up on a silver platter the day we walked into harbor freight and started buying socket sets for half what the USA made craftsman set cost. Self-inflicted wound, the American consumer is responsible and needs to own it, both left and right. We torpedoed our fellow manufacturing Americans because a lot of us are assholes and saw "more for less!", nobody put a gun to anyone's head and said "you must buy this discounted Chinese wrench". 

As to giving a damn, yes you are correct, most Americans probably don't care at all. I don't think there should be people working 60 hour weeks and barely scraping by and have to buy the "cheapest". But there are loads of people who just want the biggest TV they can get for the ball game, their new phone every other year with whatever current gimmick, and don't care how it happens just so long as it does. Oppression in Hong Kong? What's Hong Kong? Let me google it on my iphone....

But American consumption and forced obsolescence is a whole nother tangent..