- 23,936
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Righteous! Righteous!
It's rare something makes me physically cringe, but here we are.
Needs more Comic Sans.It's rare something makes me physically cringe, but here we are.
How many states are there?
I see 54.How many states are there?
They love America 108%, okay?I see 54.
How many states are there?
That's what happens when you throw away a 10+ year old account to change literally everything about it to unironically complain about others being woke.It's rare something makes me physically cringe, but here we are.
Facepalm emoji. Their terms and conditions violate the law... what law?!?!
Such libertarian. Very freedom. Wow.
liable lawFacepalm emoji. Their terms and conditions violate the law... what law?!?!
don't say the first amendment, don't say the first amendment, don't say the first amendment
That may have been my favorite part. It's like a mashup of libel and liability.liable law
liable law
So if we presume that this person meant libel... how is libel a "law against suppression of free speech?" It would be more accurate to say that libel is suppression of free speech (not accurate, but more accurate). Libel actually has the effect of curtailing speech, not enabling it.That may have been my favorite part. It's like a mashup of libel and liability.
I don't think they actually meant libel. I put that in there because the manner in which liability was invoked seemed similar to that of libel to me. Like there's some sweeping set of statutes under which an entity like Twitter (though the action was taken by YouTube in this instance, but then that confusion fits into the grievance narrative that "woke," "leftist" orgs are ganging up on conservatives to suppress speech) may be held liable for...anything. "Liable law."So if we presume that this person meant libel... how is libel a "law against suppression of free speech?" It would be more accurate to say that libel is suppression of free speech (not accurate, but more accurate). Libel actually has the effect of curtailing speech, not enabling it.
How can so many misunderstanding be present in so few words?
Section 230 shields YouTube and Twitter and any other online speaker from liability for the speech of others, and reasonable people tend to understand that this is as it should be.Oh I am not whining, they can either be a platform, or a publisher. They can not be both. Publishers are held responsible for what they allow to be published. Platforms are not.
Yeah, I'm not putting much stock in that because they also purport to be a libertarian. Those aren't libertarian principles they're espousing, but then purported libertarians espousin authoritarian princilles are in vogue right now.Especially for an education advocate.
It's accurate. You Trumpkins misunderstand things wildly. Your post was useful to the point I was making and so I used it.Wow @TexRex, Quoting me from 16 months ago, and even from a different thread, what an honor.
Nice to know I live rent free in your head.
Maybe it's a justification for secession.All the Republican party needs to retake California is a mega-tsunami!
Or Lex Luthor. Almost.All the Republican party needs to retake California is a mega-tsunami!
Who is Artaven, and why does this person deserve a voice here?