Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Supreme Court Takes Case That Could End Internet Censorship, Expand First Amendment

  1. #61
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Although the quote was used to imply that, if you listen to it in context, it's clear that neither of them are suggesting additional regulation.
    Neither I, Daniel or Ron has suggested government regulation. That is your straw man. Ron suggested lawsuits exposing these “private companies” as nothing more than organs of government.

    But since you bring up “liberty”, let’s talk about limitations on that noble concept. While we strive for liberty for all, that does not mean we must bow down and surrender to every NGO, government funded, centrally managed, censorship bureau, as is what is happening now with Facebook and Twitter. “Liberty” is not exclusively a right of the plutocracy.

    Ignore the big brother censorship at your own peril, unless your true agenda is to silence oppposition, such as that expressed by numerous libertarian-oriented outlets that have been shut down. That is the reality. Despite your obsession with Trump, the libertarian and principled voices are the ones that have been silenced.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Neither I, Daniel or Ron has suggested government regulation. That is your straw man. Ron suggested lawsuits exposing these “private companies” as nothing more than organs of government.
    Given the broad and diverse regulations that have been imposed on phone companies and utilities, this is the quote that gave me the impression that you were advocating government regulation of social media and/or other internet platforms:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Once all of that occurs, you have a situation like Facebook and Twitter. At risk of repeating myself, Twitter is more like a phone company now. Everyone has a Twitter address, like a phone number or email address. Celebrities, businesses, politicians, government entities, etc all advertise their Twitter address.

    Is there an entity that can ban you from acquiring a phone number? Is there an entity that can block from gettting an email address? That is what Twitter and Facebook can now do.

    Can a person live without a Twitter name? Can a person live without a Facebook account? Can a person live without a phone number? Can a person live without an email address? The answer to all of the above is “yes”, but it can be severely limiting depending upon one wants to do, especially if what they want to do is exercise “speech”.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    But since you bring up “liberty”, let’s talk about limitations on that noble concept. While we strive for liberty for all, that does not mean we must bow down and surrender to every NGO, government funded, centrally managed, censorship bureau, as is what is happening now with Facebook and Twitter. “Liberty” is not exclusively a right of the plutocracy.
    I haven't heard anyone make any of those strawman arguments.


    No one said anything about bowing or surrendering. Instead, new options were created and there was much crowing about the supposedly imminent death of the various mainstream platforms. The howling began only after the various media creators and "influencers" who switched to those new platforms realized that the new options are nowhere near as profitable as the old platforms. This is why the argument has changed from 'create new spaces for free speech!' to 'force existing platforms to host my content!' If they'd been able to make anywhere near as much money on Gab or Voat or whatever, there would be no such movement. Instead, it turns out that 'Twitter for white nationalists' and 'Reddit for white nationalists' are not business proposals that generate much revenue. Thus began the final step in the transformation of the alt-right into a mirror image of the snowflake SJWs that they hate so much.


    To me, the most hilarious part of it all is that the much of the same media which was devoted to decrying everything that is represented by modern media, Facebook, Google, loss of privacy, the marketing and sale of attention, and so on was entirely fueled by the money derived from the very things that they opposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Ignore the big brother censorship at your own peril, unless your true agenda is to silence oppposition
    Big brother censorship? Opposition? Opposition to what, exactly? The whole reason that this 'regulate-the-internet' movement is gaining such traction is that it supports the narratives of the largest media outlet in the nation and the political party which controls all three branches of federal government in addition to the majority of state governments. It's hardly a put-upon dissident group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    such as that expressed by numerous libertarian-oriented outlets that have been shut down.
    Have the outlets been shut down, or are publishers just refusing to distribute their content?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Despite your obsession with Trump, the libertarian and principled voices are the ones that have been silenced.
    I think that the various social media companies have overreacted in many instances, having swung from largely laissez faire policies to being far too aggressive in dishing out bans after having realized that they had allowed their platforms to be turned into toxic cesspools (and that this might hurt their profits). I don't, however, think that the majority of 'whose who have been silenced' were either principled or libertarian.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Given the broad and diverse regulations that have been imposed on phone companies and utilities, this is the quote that gave me the impression that you were advocating government regulation of social media and/or other internet platforms:







    I haven't heard anyone make any of those strawman arguments.


    No one said anything about bowing or surrendering. Instead, new options were created and there was much crowing about the supposedly imminent death of the various mainstream platforms. The howling began only after the various media creators and "influencers" who switched to those new platforms realized that the new options are nowhere near as profitable as the old platforms. This is why the argument has changed from 'create new spaces for free speech!' to 'force existing platforms to host my content!' If they'd been able to make anywhere near as much money on Gab or Voat or whatever, there would be no such movement. Instead, it turns out that 'Twitter for white nationalists' and 'Reddit for white nationalists' are not business proposals that generate much revenue. Thus began the final step in the transformation of the alt-right into a mirror image of the snowflake SJWs that they hate so much.


    To me, the most hilarious part of it all is that the much of the same media which was devoted to decrying everything that is represented by modern media, Facebook, Google, loss of privacy, the marketing and sale of attention, and so on was entirely fueled by the money derived from the very things that they opposed.



    Big brother censorship? Opposition? Opposition to what, exactly? The whole reason that this 'regulate-the-internet' movement is gaining such traction is that it supports the narratives of the largest media outlet in the nation and the political party which controls all three branches of federal government in addition to the majority of state governments. It's hardly a put-upon dissident group.



    Have the outlets been shut down, or are publishers just refusing to distribute their content?



    I think that the various social media companies have overreacted in many instances, having swung from largely laissez faire policies to being far too aggressive in dishing out bans after having realized that they had allowed their platforms to be turned into toxic cesspools (and that this might hurt their profits). I don't, however, think that the majority of 'whose who have been silenced' were either principled or libertarian.
    The world turned upside down

    But we know to expect that from The Vampire.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Yep. It's his template. TheCount is an extreme progressive. He voted Obama twice. He voted Hillary 2016. He is posting here on behalf of the Open Society Foundations. If I am wrong, then he is welcome to refute it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Be curious to see if he responds.

    What say ye @TheCount ?

    No, of course he won't respond. Or, at least respond honestly. I have asked him these questions more than once. They're simple questions.

    TheCount is as dishonest as the day is long.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  8. #66

    LOL. Nice red herring. Do you speak English?

    Answer the questions.


    Did you vote Obama for president 2008 and 2012?
    Did you vote Hillary for president 2016?
    Do you work for the Open Society Foundations?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Even if true that wouldn't be as sad as your posting history.

    I challenge TheCount to bump that thread, but he won't because he's a shrewd chicken$#@!.

    I proposed a bet several times to him with stakes that the loser leaves the forum for good. Same with Zip and PRB. None of them took me up on it.

    Now what could these people possibly have to lose by leaving this forum?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  10. #68

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-30-2014, 03:44 PM
  2. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Major Second Amendment Case
    By Lucille in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-07-2014, 08:31 AM
  3. Rare 10th Amendment case heads to Supreme Court
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 02:40 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2009, 07:00 AM
  5. Supreme Court to Rule in Second Amendment Case
    By FrankRep in forum Second Amendment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 09:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •