Facebook protected you from "unsafe" Diamond and Silk

Back in the 1970’s, when the Left started to push their propaganda in earnest on TV, they argued the importance of free speech, no matter how outrageous. The Left then used their expanded view of acceptable free speech in sitcoms in order to promote their antifamily, anticountry, antireligion, antiauthority, and pro sexual “diversity” agenda. It is not hard to compare the sitcoms in the fifties and sixties to the sitcoms of the seventies and later. In addition, one can compare how reporting was done in the sixties to how it is done now. Facts mattered back then. Now the focus is usually on how they can create the greatest emotional impact to further their agenda.

The Left has won many legistlative victories requiring most businesses to accomodate handicapped people and to not descriminate on the basis of sex, religion, family status, race and sexual orientation.

Is it not fair for one to be able to express one’s political opinions? Are not political opinions considered free speech? Do not businesses have an obligation, if not legal requirements, for non-descriminatory behaviour? Where a business reaches a threshold size, precidence shows they are obligated to the needs of the community. The Left made sure that happened. Thus Facebook is obligated to allow those whose opinions who may differ from the managers, access to their platform.

Isn’t it interesting the people they don’t want on their platform have high moral character, love America, are conservative, and are Christian? Do they have a four strikes and you’re out policy?

Saw on TV today they were talking about the Miami Dolphins and maybe the NFL being sued because a cheerleader named Kristan Ann Ware was denied a contract renewal because she posted in regards to her Christian faith on social media.

It seems to me the Left’s tentacles run deep and are trying to control free speech. Are they afraid of radical ideas such as free speech, love of ones country, freedom of religion, facts over emotionalism, family values, and Conservatism?

It should be obvious to people the Left has been taken over by an entity that does not have the best interests of the American people in mind. This entities techniques and narrative matches a method of taking down a culture from within. Russia is by far our most likely opponent.

Those who love America need to join together and fight off this threat to our freedom and way of life before it is too late.
 
What are you dreaming about? Of course can hotels in private hands restrict whoever they don't want to stay at their venues. A hotel can reject an NRA weekend gathering inquiry and booking request. Why would it not be able to do so? Which law was violated?

You gotta perhaps read up on the precise definition and it's application of "discrimination". There are many kinds where discrimination is perfectly fine and legal.

I think we are beyond that. The argument now is whether or not there should be laws restricting the ability of social media monopolists to engage in censorship. As usual, establishment cuck republicans are way behind the curve on this, and are still muttering things like "they are a private company" as if that is the end of discussion.

Hotels are private companies too. They can't restrict who they let rooms to. Restaurants are private companies and engaged in interstate commerce only in the most tangential manner yet congress passed laws requiring them to serve all comers. Your local electric company can't cut your service because your Christmas display annoyed them.

If we have to bake your fucking cake, you damn well should not be allowed to censor us.
 
People can challenge everything. But your example would never succeed in court. A baker can refuse to sell to homos if he is so inclined and there is nothing you can do about other than "challenge"
Well, I'm not well enough versed in matters involving the courts to debate you on this, but I still think Diamond & Silk were wronged. They didn't do anything wrong. And FB is pretty much a utility (if you will) in the sense that it has gotten very very big. Who knows. I do like D&S... albeit I suspect they're in it for the $'s. :D
 
Last edited:
I think we are beyond that. The argument now is whether or not there should be laws restricting the ability of social media monopolists to engage in censorship. As usual, establishment cuck republicans are way behind the curve on this, and are still muttering things like "they are a private company" as if that is the end of discussion.

Hotels are private companies too. They can't restrict who they let rooms to. Restaurants are private companies and engaged in interstate commerce only in the most tangential manner yet congress passed laws requiring them to serve all comers. Your local electric company can't cut your service because your Christmas display annoyed them.

If we have to bake your fucking cake, you damn well should not be allowed to censor us.


As sort of a huge side development to the circus in DC with Zuckerberg, it is interesting to see that he is also in deep doo-doo- probably moreso- with the Europeans who are discussing whether it is safe to send Facebook captured data to the U.S. Can you blame them.

And probably they have censorship issues of their own too, and are not particularly concerned about what is and is not allowed under American law.

Havin fun yet, Mark?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...-threw-a-huge-curveball-at-facebook-1.3459998
 
What are you dreaming about? Of course can hotels in private hands restrict whoever they don't want to stay at their venues. A hotel can reject an NRA weekend gathering inquiry and booking request. Why would it not be able to do so? Which law was violated?

You gotta perhaps read up on the precise definition and it's application of "discrimination". There are many kinds where discrimination is perfectly fine and legal.

My point was that there are laws outlawing discrimination on specific grounds and further restricting the actions of companies deemed public utilities. It seems a small expansion to either treat social media monopolists as utilities or add political expression to the list of protected categories. The only reason democrats would oppose it is those companies are their biggest contributors and effective shock troops against the rest of the country.
 
You still don't seem to be able to provide a single argument why FB cannot moderate nor boot off users in whatever way it pleases.

You mean like a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding, that kinda whatever way it pleases?
 
You mean like a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding, that kinda whatever way it pleases?

Or the Kentucky government employee whose job it was to issue marriage licenses refusing to issue marriage licenses to gays.
 
Is it not fair for one to be able to express one’s political opinions? Are not political opinions considered free speech? Do not businesses have an obligation, if not legal requirements, for non-descriminatory behaviour? Where a business reaches a threshold size, precidence shows they are obligated to the needs of the community. The Left made sure that happened. Thus Facebook is obligated to allow those whose opinions who may differ from the managers, access to their platform.

Even Hillary agrees with you...
 
Back
Top