FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Show me the post where I stated that I support any 1st Amendment arguments that internet platforms don't have the right to moderate their content.

You criticized the platforms for censoring conservatives and muzzling free speech, a First Amendment argument at its core and the crux of the constant harping from wingnuts about social media platforms and the basis of the 5th Circuit decision that you defend. Quit the disingenuous bullshit whenever I point out the fallacies, inconsistencies and counterfactual basis of your bad faith arguments.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You criticized the platforms for censoring conservatives and muzzling free speech, a First Amendment argument at its core and the crux of the constant harping from wingnuts about social media platforms and the basis of the 5th Circuit decision that you defend. Quit the disingenuous bullshit whenever I point out the fallacies, inconsistencies and counterfactual basis of your bad faith arguments.

I discussed this context of platforms putting their 230 liability protections at risk. In the context that Facebook has already stated they were a publisher. There is a potential legal argument there as stated in post 2365. In that same post, I also stated that I could only conjecture about whether such a case might have merit. I defended nothing.

In that same post, I also stated in the same post that the "muzzling" comment was in the context of YOUR post about the Texas law, and was a tongue-in-cheek reference to YOUR desire to have speech "muzzled".

I'm very done about rehashing this because I'm tired of you reinterpreting my post on this (and many other things) and being a fallacy factory, only to have you tell me that I'm the one being disingenuous.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I discussed this context of platforms putting their 230 liability protections at risk. In the context that Facebook has already stated they were a publisher. There is a potential legal argument there as stated in post 2365. In that same post, I also stated that I could only conjecture about whether such a case might have merit. I defended nothing.

In that same post, I also stated in the same post that the "muzzling" comment was in the context of YOUR post about the Texas law, and was a tongue-in-cheek reference to YOUR desire to have speech "muzzled".

I'm very done about rehashing this because I'm tired of you reinterpreting my post on this (and many other things) and being a fallacy factory, only to have you tell me that I'm the one being disingenuous.

Missing in all of the whining/victimization concerning censorship of conservative voices is that fact that Section 230 also states that:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

The bottom line is that conservatives conflate moderation of objectionable, violent or harassing content with deliberate censorship of conservatives, failing to recognize that modern day conservatism is where objectionable, violent and harassing content predominately resides. Yours is the party of "Second Amendment solutions;" violent threats to politicians, abortion providers, teachers and other public servants; election denial; vaccine and COVID lies; overt misogyny and racism; QAnon; fascism and a violent insurrection. Section 230 explicitly gives these platforms the right to moderate content that they find objectionable, even if the source of such material happens to predominately be conservatives.

Maybe the answer is for conservatives to learn that nothing in the law or the Constitution gives them an absolute right to threaten, harass, or demean others, spread harmful lies or to plan insurrections on private platforms that don't wish to host such shit. They should be happy with 4Chan, Gab and Truth Social for such uses of social media (even though Truth Social itself moderates content more strictly than Twitter (it bans users who discuss Jan. 6 committee hearings)).

[Chicks]

It’s become extremely obvious, judging by the likes of Donny, Meadows, DeSatan, Cruz and all the rest of these disgusting creatures, that today’s variety of “conservatives” no longer follow conservative principles. They’re simply liars, crooks and power mad. Whell falls for their dishonesty, every time. Sad.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

It’s become extremely obvious, judging by the likes of Donny, Meadows, DeSatan, Cruz and all the rest of these disgusting creatures, that today’s variety of “conservatives” no longer follow conservative principles. They’re simply liars, crooks and power mad. Whell falls for their dishonesty, every time. Sad.

Oh, yeah. There are no, zip, zero, nada power-mad crook in DC, or state and local gov'ts as well, other than the 4 you mentioned.

Wake up. The entire city is a cesspool of special interests and mad money, staffed by folks whose sole intention is to protect their asses and get re-elected.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, yeah. There are no, zip, zero, nada power-mad crook in DC, or state and local gov'ts as well, other than the 4 you mentioned.

Wake up. The entire city is a cesspool of special interests and mad money, staffed by folks whose sole intention is to protect their asses and get re-elected.

No where in post you quoted did that member say what you misrepresented him to say.

Stop lying, Mike.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

No where in post you quoted did that member say what you misrepresented him to say.

Stop lying, Mike.

Lay off the sauce Bob. You're making stuff up.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

The entire city is a cesspool of special interests and mad money, staffed by folks whose sole intention is to protect their asses and get re-elected.

That was once (at least somewhat) true. Now Republicans don't even seem to believe that they need to get (re)elected to hold on to power. They'll game the system, install fake electors, or even incite violent insurrections to maintain their hold on power and excommunicate those unwilling to go along with these undemocratic excesses (e.g., Liz Cheney).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That was once (at least somewhat) true. Now Republicans don't even seem to believe that they need to get (re)elected to hold on to power. They'll game the system, install fake electors, or even incite violent insurrections to maintain their hold on power and excommunicate those unwilling to go along with these undemocratic excesses (e.g., Liz Cheney).

You're joking, right? There's no proof that anyone incited a violent insurrection. No one in a position to do so contemplated installing fake electors. There's a hell of a lot of innuendo and third hand testimony on the part of Dems, and a bunch of outright lies that you have lapped up.

1) The story that you and the Star Chamber dutifully ignore:

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside...

Trump behaved like a damn fool on January 6th, and that continues. But he no more coordinated the Jan 6th riot than you did. The only folks who keep referring to Jan 6th as an "insurrection" are folks like you, the Dems and their allies.

2) The fake electors thing was an idiotic idea dreamed up by Giuliani and company at Trump's behest. Lots of folks a screaming for prosecution on this, but it's not even clear that it's a felony. Here in MI, the Atty General has made noise about prosecuting, but that's about it. More to come on this but the likelihood of success of that plan less than nil.

Doesn't mean that the attempt to mess with the elector certification was right, justified or ethical. It wasn't.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You're joking, right? There's no proof that anyone incited a violent insurrection. No one in a position to do so contemplated installing fake electors. There's a hell of a lot of innuendo and third hand testimony on the part of Dems, and a bunch of outright lies that you have lapped up.

Damn. You're an insurrection denier too? I should have figured as much.