America - The Official Thread

[Jezza819]

One of the esteemed, or I guess I should say steamed, Republican candidates for Governor of Alabama stopped by a local church this past weekend and gave his views on society in general and the folks he has run into in his journeys. He also said that Roe v. Wade was definitely going down and that this ruling would "pull the rug" out from under other cases like school prayer and same sex marriage WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THEIR AGENDA WOULD BE a few days ago and that gave Chrunch Houston such a good little giggle.

This nutjob goes by the name of Tim James. He is the son of former Governor Fob James. And yes the nut doesn't fall far from the tree. He has made other outrageous comments in the past days and weeks.

Now the church is apologizing saying his remarks do not hold with the church's views. Yeah right.

Alabama church apologizes for Tim James’ ‘freak show’ comment, says message didn’t reflect ‘heart of God’

A church in northeast Alabama is apologizing after Tim James, a Republican candidate for Alabama governor, spoke at its Sunday service.

whnt.com

 

[R3V]

In which Elon Musk's "free speech absolutism" is revealed to be considerably less than absolute.



Who determines what is "wrong and bad," and why does this sound so much like content moderation?

Ideally the court of law. Social media companies have no right to sell or moderate your data without your consent or a warrant.

 

[TexRex]

Ideally the court of law. Social media companies have no right to sell or moderate your data without your consent or a warrant.

 

[Brett]

Ideally the court of law. Social media companies have no right to sell or moderate your data without your consent or a warrant.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Ideally the court of law. Social media companies have no right to sell or moderate your data without your consent or a warrant.

As in literally the government? As in literally the government moderating speech?

 

[Blitz24]

Ideally the court of law. Social media companies have no right to sell or moderate your data without your consent or a warrant.

Sir, do you know what a ToS is?

 

[Joey D]

Ideally the court of law. Social media companies have no right to sell or moderate your data without your consent or a warrant.

You consent to it when you create an account.

 

[McLaren]

Driving the news: "I am finding that the enacted map is unconstitutional under the Fair District amendment ... because it diminishes African Americans' ability to elect the representatives of their choice," Leon County Circuit Judge Layne Smith said.

• Smith is expected to issue a formal order on Thursday or Friday to ensure that the maps are not in effect during November's election, AP reports.

Why it matters: DeSantis' plan dismantles the North Florida seat now held by a Black Democrat.

• The new maps DeSantis called "race-neutral" make it harder for North Florida voters to elect a Black member of Congress in the 5th congressional district, where nearly half its residents are Black.

Flashback: A Democratic-aligned redistricting group joined voting rights and civil rights organizations to file a suit against Florida’s new congressional map the same day DeSantis signed it into law late last month.

Florida judge says DeSantis' redistricting map is unconstitutional

The circuit judge is expected to issue a formal order on Thursday or Friday.

www.axios.com

 

[pokemonfan58]

Florida judge says DeSantis' redistricting map is unconstitutional

The circuit judge is expected to issue a formal order on Thursday or Friday.

www.axios.com

Also from the same site that the article you posted is from.

Bill to protect abortion rights fails to pass Senate

The move was all but certainly destined to fail from the start, as Democrats lacked the votes to advance.

www.axios.com

😞
What the hell is wrong with our country.

 

[McLaren]

Also from the same site that the article you posted is from.

Bill to protect abortion rights fails to pass Senate

The move was all but certainly destined to fail from the start, as Democrats lacked the votes to advance.

www.axios.com

😞
What the hell is wrong with our country.

They knew it was destined to. There's a theory they've done it so all the Republicans (mainly) who voted Nay will now be on record of where they stand & their Democratic opponents may use it against them during the Mid-Terms as this is a touchy subject that even many conservatives don't agree with overturning.

 

[R3V]

As in literally the government? As in literally the government moderating speech?

Sir, do you know what a ToS is?

You consent to it when you create an account.

You can't sign your human rights away by "agreeing" to some ******** ToS. Social media companies are the digital version of phone companies. Anyway enjoy fascism.

 

[TexRex]

You can't sign your human rights away by "agreeing" to some ******** ToS. Social media companies are the digital version of phone companies. Anyway enjoy fascism.

 

[Darla Starch]

 

[pokemonfan58]

You can't sign your human rights away by "agreeing" to some ******** ToS. Social media companies are the digital version of phone companies. Anyway enjoy fascism.

So you agree when signing up for GTPlanet that you’ll take part in a new revolutionary product?

 

[R3V]

So you agree when signing up for GTPlanet that you’ll take part in a new revolutionary product?

Last I checked GTP didn't have 70% of the US population "signed up" to it. Nor is it a digital communication platform per se. If Facebook is a phone company, GTP would be a private book club.

 

[Joey D]

You can't sign your human rights away by "agreeing" to some ******** ToS. Social media companies are the digital version of phone companies. Anyway enjoy fascism.

If you don't agree with what a private company is doing then you can choose not to use that private company's services. However, by agreeing to the terms they've outlined then you're willingly handing over your personal information. There's no human rights violation here.

And sure, social media sites are like phone companies. Guess what, by agreeing to use a phone service they can, and do, collect your data as well. Once again, no human rights violation.

I also find it amusing that you think I'm remotely fascist. I support the complete opposite of authoritarianism. So much so in fact that I don't think the government belongs in any private business.

 

[TexRex]

Last I checked GTP didn't have 70% of the US population "signed up" to it. Nor is it a digital communication platform per se. If Facebook is a phone company, GTP would be a private book club.

Why is scale important if "human rights" are implicated? Human rights don't care about scale.

Also Facebook isn't a phone company.

Be less stupid.

 

[Brett]

You can't sign your human rights away by "agreeing" to some ******** ToS. Social media companies are the digital version of phone companies. Anyway enjoy fascism.

 

[Blitz24]

You can't sign your human rights away by "agreeing" to some ******** ToS. Social media companies are the digital version of phone companies. Anyway enjoy fascism.

What "human rights" are there on Twitter? This took an extreme jump.

 

[R3V]

If you don't agree with what a private company is doing then you can choose not to use that private company's services.

They're "selling" an essential service/utilty not flavored ice cream. I don't understand why so many can't see it. Your arguments were made when telephone companies were founded and were quickly shut down as horse crap like 100 years ago.

However, by agreeing to the terms they've outlined then you're willingly handing over your personal information.

The funny thing about that is that they've CHANGED their TOS after they successfuly established a monopoly on what became an essential service. Gotta love bait and switch.

There's no human rights violation here.

Can a phone company take down your line if you said something they don't like?

Guess what, by agreeing to use a phone service they can, and do, collect your data as well.

If you're not offered an option to opt out prior to using the service, the phone company should be shut down.

I also find it amusing that you think I'm remotely fascist. I support the complete opposite of authoritarianism. So much so in fact that I don't think the government belongs in any private business.

I find the irony quite sad and not amusing at all. Do you consider anti trust laws "government meddling in private business" as well?

Why is scale important if "human rights" are implicated? Human rights don't care about scale.

Also Facebook isn't a phone company.

Scale determines whether something is essential or not. It's not even a debate that a phone line or electricity to your house is an essential service. Facebook has more Americans signed up to it than there are Americans with landlines.

Be less rude.

What "human rights" are there on Twitter? This took an extreme jump.

Free speech. And before any of you go "hurr durr 1st amendment protects you from government not business", remember that they protect your right to live by prosecuting murder. You're arguing that private business can murder and take your right to live away because it's not the government doing it.

 

[McLaren]

Can a phone company take down your line if you said something they don't like?

Call up a phone company's customer service line and use offensive language repeatedly. Pretty sure they'll do just that.

Free speech. And before any of you go "hurr durr 1st amendment protects you from government not business", remember that they protect your right to live by prosecuting murder. You're arguing that private business can murder and take your right to live away because it's not the government doing it.

I don't think the train of thought here plays out like you think it does.

 

[TexRex]

essential

essential

essential

 

[Populuxe]

I don't have a Facebook account. Am I missing out on an essential service?

 

[R3V]

Call up a phone company's customer service line and use offensive language repeatedly. Pretty sure they'll do just that.

I don't think the train of thought here plays out like you think it does.

Fighting words are not protected speech anywhere in the world, not even by the US supreme court's interpretation of the 1st amendment. Nice try, though.

Care to explain the difference? Most if not all crimes are considered as such because they violate one or more of your human rights. When constitutions protect you from such violations, they don't just protect you from the executive branch, but from eveyrone. Why is the right to speak excluded from this?

I don't have a Facebook account. Am I missing out on an essential service?

Someone living in the woods doesn't have power or running water either. Guess they're not essential at all.

What the hell is wrong with our country.

What's wrong is years of capitalism worship to the point where you let big corporations have more power than the collective of citizens AKA the government.

 

[McLaren]

Fighting words are not protected speech anywhere in the world, not even by the US supreme court's interpretation of the 1st amendment.

You're the one who asked, "Can a phone company take down your line if you said something they don't like?".

Yes, they can & they probably have.

Be less rude.

Suck on your own advice next time, btw.

 

[pokemonfan58]

Fighting words are not protected speech anywhere in the world, not even by the US supreme court's interpretation of the 1st amendment. Nice try, though.

Care to explain the difference? Most if not all crimes are considered as such because they violate one or more of your human rights. When constitutions protect you from such violations, they don't just protect you from the executive branch, but from eveyrone. Why is the right to speak excluded from this?


Someone living in the woods doesn't have power or running water either. Guess they're not essential at all.



What's wrong is years of capitalism worship to the point where you let big corporations have more power than the collective of citizens AKA the government.

How does letting the government collect your data have anything to do with abortion as the post that you’re responding to was related to the senate failing to pass a bill that would prevent states from banning abortions. And overturning Roe V Wade would result in states being able to legally pass laws to ban abortion which would increase rape crimes and deaths from pregnancy.

Also funny of you to assume I’m Populuxe’s alternate account which if I’m not mistaken is actually against GTP’s ToS. Maybe if you stop thinking that a fan site dedicated to Gran Turismo is interested in selling personal data to the Government or China, you would know that.

EDIT: For those of you reading this post after R3V edited his post to remove the part out of where I thought he was assuming if I was populuxe, right before he quoted my post, above my quoted post he wrote to populuxe “Also is this you?” as if I was actually Populuxe asking what the hell is wrong with the US government in failing to protect abortion.

You seriously can’t reason with idiots.

 

[R3V]

You're the one who asked, "Can a phone company take down your line if you said something they don't like?".

Yes, they can & they probably have.



Suck on your own advice next time, btw.

There's a difference between "something they don't like" and being "offensive" towards a representative. Something they don't like could be telling your friend you like mild salsa over the phone. Telling AT&T's phone rep you're going to kill his dog is not the same thing. Am I wasting time by explaining this? Are you guys even trying here or just don't like what I'm saying and trolling?

How does letting the government collect your data have anything to do with abortion as the post that you’re responding to was related to the senate failing to pass a bill that would prevent states from banning abortions. And overturning Roe V Wade would result in states being able to legally pass laws to ban abortion which would increase rape crimes and deaths from pregnancy.

Also funny of you to assume I’m Populuxe’s alternate account which if I’m not mistaken is actually against GTP’s ToS. Maybe if you stop thinking that a fan site dedicated to Gran Turismo is interested in selling personal data to the Government or China, you would know that.

I edited the post like 10 seconds after I looked at the usernames. I just saw the letter P and a white picture as I scrolled and thought it's the same user.

Anyway it has nothing to do with abortion, just saying the accumulation of corporate power is behind the fall of your government and rights over time. And yet you and the others here are advocating for more power to social media companies...

Democrats in 2016: SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES INTEREFERE IN ELECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL

Democrats in 2020: SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ARE PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED WITH

 

[TexRex]

Fighting words are not protected speech anywhere in the world, not even by the US supreme court's interpretation of the 1st amendment. Nice try, though.

In First Amendment jurisprudence, that which is "offensive" is not "fighting words." That which is "offensive" is much more likely to be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution than not, but it's not protected against action by private parties.

"Fighting words" is speech likely to incite imminent violence or retaliation by the recipient of said speech, and its scope has been narrowed considerably since its conception in 1942 in Chaplinski v. New Hampshire.

Just because an individual may perpetrate an act of violence against a speaker--think the Will Smith, Chris Rock drama--doesn't mean it's a likely response.

[Edit: Possible profanity. I listened to it years ago and can't recall.]

Fighting Words - Legal Talk Network

In this inaugural episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White explores the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case and the ensuing “fighting words” doctrine, which is often cited in disputes over free speech in the United States. Discover insightful episodes on...

legaltalknetwork.com

Words can't hurt you unless you let them hurt you.

 

[McLaren]

There's a difference between "something they don't like" and being "offensive" towards a representative. Something they don't like could be telling your friend you like mild salsa over the phone. Telling AT&T's phone rep you're going to kill his dog is not the same thing. Am I wasting time by explaining this? Are you guys even trying here or just don't like what I'm saying and trolling?

Take a hard look in the mirror based on how everyone else has replied to you.

 

[R3V]

Words can't hurt you unless you let them hurt you.

Which is why they can't cut your landline if you've merely said "hurtful" words to their customer service rep

I just skipped through and wen straight to fighting words, which would be grounds to take away your rights.

Take a hard look in the mirror based on how everyone else has replied to you.

Doesn't mean anything. Clearly this board has selected for people with similar ideologies over time and few (or zero) who agree with me remain. Each board has a vibe around certain topics. I'm okay with that and don't mind taking on all of you all on my own