Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

Right... So just what is the claim you're peddling back to?

Well, if you want to be a part of the discussion, you can read...

Alex Jones is already part of the discussion, a hero for supporters of White male privelige.

And yet, I've not mentioned it, Husabergs not mentioned - and then here you are spouting derogatory phrases involving Race and Sex - like a Racist Sexist...

[FJRider]

By your own admission - different scenarios: You passed the attitude test, they didn't.

The Law (enforcement) do not (in MY experience) differentiate between "Scenarios" ... it differentiates between offences committed. Any OTHER way of issuing Traffic Offense notices is illegal. Officer discretion (in your favor) is not something that can ALWAYS be relied on roadside after being stopped to get out of any traffic misdemeanor. Therefore (in my opinion) it is not a scenario as such ... merely action and reaction. How those actions (or scenarios if you really do prefer) play out is almost totally in the hands of those involved. The discretion of the officer involved dictates the end result. Attitude and behavior of those stopped can and does have influence on the end result ... but the one with the discretion has the final say at the roadside ...

Sure, but let me put it this way - If all other factors were equal (behavior, speed, road worthiness of the vehicle etc.) and the only thing changed was say the political leanings of the individual (maybe they had a National sticker vs a Labour sticker) - would your expectation be that they would receive the same treatment from the same officer?

If however across multiple instances (so not one or two but thousands upon thousands) that was not the case, you'd rightly cry Foul.

In my (vast) experience of roadside "chats" with Law Enforcement Representative's ... neither political or personal leanings/beliefs influenced the officer(s) decisions at any time. Agreed ... they were not always happy ... but in MY experience ... they were always fair.

Maybe .... it was my attitude that made the difference. But I'm not an expert (self declared) in IT ... so I couldn't say for sure ...

[husaberg]

Except that's not what I'm claiming - Please put the Strawman down.

You're not addressing the point, because you know it's fundamentally correct.



So, why is the site still running? If your claim is it can no longer afford to pay the bills, then it would be shut down. But the site is still up - which means clearly, the money they have lost is not significant enough to stop the operation of the site.

Which brings us to my ancillary point - the left-wing "Activists" such as Sleeping Giant aren't as effectual as they wish to appear to be. That in turn reinforces my main point - It's not a factual claim to say that they are bad for business.

In fact, remember the old adages: There's no such thing as bad publicity and the french "Succès de scandale"



They had an airtight response:

"First Amendment - he's allowed to spout Conspiracy Crap and it's not our Job to stop him. If he's doing something illegal, Charge him with a crime and see how it goes"

I want to draw specific attention to one of the lines in your timeline:



Remember when we talking about making editorial decisions? Facebook's response was absolutely correct in this instance. It is not their job to be the surrogate Censor.

But, we've seen a reverse on this - the moment they started to be the arbiter of truth, they became an Editor with oversight and responsibilities - and furthermore, we've seen collusion on this (remember that all of the social media sites banned him within hours of each other).

All from companies who share the same approximate geographic location for their main headquarters, have the same political leanings and whose staff have a similar west coast, left-wing outlook on life.

Thats exactly what you are claiming, that you know better than a Federal court judge.
Drawing attention to one line is rather silly especially as its one line you wish to take out of context. While you ignore the rest.
While they dont want to make editorial decision they acknowledge that the content on their sites is not in keeping with their rules which is why it was being removed.
All the social media sites removing jones as once appears to be the domino effect, one site showed guts made the call the others followed.
But lets be serious he had been on shaky ground for months.
The certainly would have got the wind up due to their failures to adhere to their own guild-lines in front of congress in July.

He gets to abuse folk more than me. I'm sin binned at the minute. Can only assume for something I said to Katman.

I noticed that.
Katman red repped me this afternoon and claimed "he had special knowledge of what goes on on KB behind the scenes", I just think hes "SPECIAL needs"
Makes a change from his normal abuse i guess.

[TheDemonLord]

In my (vast) experience of roadside "chats" with Law Enforcement Representative's ... neither political or personal leanings/beliefs influenced the officer(s) decisions at any time. Agreed ... they were not always happy ... but in MY experience ... they were always fair.

And that's the point - No one has any issues when the rules are fairly enforced.

The claim that I'm making is that the rules are being selectively enforced. In fact, if we extend our Police Metaphor - do you remember the fuss that was kicked up when Police were letting of Maori for various offences.

[husaberg]

And that's the point - No one has any issues when the rules are fairly enforced.

The claim that I'm making is that the rules are being selectively enforced. In fact, if we extend our Police Metaphor - do you remember the fuss that was kicked up when Police were letting of Maori for various offences.

So your latest failed analogy would be akin to suggesting when you are getting a ticket for speeding to the police officer that you shouldn't get a ticket as other have speed and not got caught yet, Yeah that is logical.

[TheDemonLord]

Thats exactly what you are claiming, that you know better than a Federal court judge.

On IT Matters - which is different from what you are trying to posit. Hence you need to stop with the Strawman and address the actual argument.

Drawing attention to one line is rather silly especially as its one line you wish to take out of context.

No, it's entirely in context and in the timeline. Their initial position was one of Free Speech and acknowledging that they shouldn't be editorializing content.

While they dont want to make editorial decision they acknowledge that the content on their sites is not in keeping with their rules which is why it was being removed.

You're playing a sleight of hand, they are under no legal or congressional obligation to keep to their Rules. They could have told Congress to piss off, citing the first amendment.

You are trying to make it sound like they were under some fiat of force from the government to do something.

All the social media sites removing jones as once appears to be the domino effect, one site showed guts made the call the others followed.
But lets be serious he had been on shaky ground for months.
The certainly would have got the wind up due to their failures to adhere to their own guild-lines in front of congress in July.

Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.

[TheDemonLord]

So your latest failed analogy would be akin to suggesting when you are getting a ticket for speeding to the police officer that you shouldn't get a ticket as other have speed and not got caught yet, Yeah that is logical.

Keep setting up that Strawman....

[husaberg]

On IT Matters - which is different from what you are trying to posit. Hence you need to stop with the Strawman and address the actual argument.



No, it's entirely in context and in the timeline. Their initial position was one of Free Speech and acknowledging that they shouldn't be editorializing content.



You're playing a sleight of hand, they are under no legal or congressional obligation to keep to their Rules. They could have told Congress to piss off, citing the first amendment.

You are trying to make it sound like they were under some fiat of force from the government to do something.



Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.

Your actual argument is you believe are more of an expert on legal matters than a Federal court judge. Which is delusional when it comes to legal matters.
No you took a line out of context and katmaned it.
If they told Congress to piss off they would have had congress removing their freedoms to act as they have thus far.
Colluding really, so do you have any evidence or are you just trying to create a conspiracy.
As for the accusation that i are offering a strawman its clearly you that are trying to do this.
its pretty simple Jones has breached the site rules of the sites he was banned from.
but as a defense you can only offer strawmans , Do you offer that he is not guilty, nope, instead you offer up as a defense others are guilty, that there is a classic strawman. you then introduce all these other players and possible conspiracies and how he can say whatever he likes, but this is not the case at all.

July 11th: Facebook hosts a Q&A session with reporters about its efforts to fight fake news but fails to explain why a page like InfoWars, known for spreading misinformation, is allowed to live on its site. Facebook's argument seems to be that it doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth. "We just don't think banning pages for sharing conspiracy theories or false news is the right way to go," the company says. "They seem to have YouTube and Twitter accounts too -- we imagine for the same reason."

July 17th: Facebook testifies before Congress (again), in a hearing titled "Examining the Content Filtering Practices of Social Media Giants." The company's president for global policy management, Monika Bickert, is unable to tell members of the House Judiciary Committee why InfoWars hasn't been banned from the site for spreading conspiracies. "Allegations that survivors of a tragedy like Parkland are crisis actors, that violates our policy and we remove that content," she says. "If they posted sufficient content that violated our threshold, that page would come down." The problem is that Facebook apparently can't decide when a page should be banned, since it doesn't have a "three strikes and you're out" policy like YouTube. "That threshold varies," Bickert says, "depending on the severity of different types of violations."

July 25th: YouTube removes multiple videos from the Alex Jones Channel, citing a violation of its community guidelines. Of the four videos removed, two reportedly featured hate speech against Muslims and transgender people. Another one was titled "How to prevent liberalism" and featured Jones mocking a child being shoved by an adult man. "We have long standing policies against child endangerment and hate speech," YouTube says in a statement. "We apply our policies consistently according to the content in the videos, regardless of the speaker or the channel. We also have a clear three-strikes policy and we terminate channels when they receive three strikes in three months." Even though four videos were removed, though, this counts as only one strike.

July 27th: Facebook blocks Jones from posting on his personal profile for 30 days, though the InfoWars and "Alex Jones" public pages aren't part of the suspension. The company says it's banning Jones for violating its community standards, after removing several videos from his account that promoted hateful content -- some of which were the same ones YouTube removed on July 25th. "Our Community Standards make it clear that we prohibit content that encourages physical harm [bullying], or attacks someone based on their religious affiliation or gender identity [hate speech]" Facebook said.

If you watch they are fighting to keep their special privileges.ie section 230
This occured a liitlle over a week before jones content was removed and the process of suspending Jones activities went into overdrive.
Its pretty clear reading between the lines they were offered a chance to clean up there sites or face having their privillages revoked, as just saying "hey we only run the site and people post stuff its not our fault what the content is" is no longer enough

[Graystone]

Well, if you want to be a part of the discussion, you can read...



And yet, I've not mentioned it, Husabergs not mentioned - and then here you are spouting derogatory phrases involving Race and Sex - like a Racist Sexist...

And if only you could write coherently we could have one.

the derogatory phrases are your interpretation, and they certainly are not racist or sexist. Could it be, that such white male supremacy behavior is part of the reason Alex Jones was banned? A reason you absolutely want to keep out of the discussion as it invalidates your mutterings about martyrdom...

[Graystone]

On IT Matters - which is different from what you are trying to posit. Hence you need to stop with the Strawman and address the actual argument.

Drop the wide-on for IT, has nobody told you it is a bitch job only there to facilitate the needs and desires of other industries/services?

[Katman]

If you watch they are fighting to keep their special privileges.ie section 230
This occured a liitlle over a week before jones content was removed and the process of suspending Jones activities went into overdrive.
Its pretty clear reading between the lines they were offered a chance to clean up there sites or face having their privillages revoked, as just saying "hey we only run the site and people post stuff its not our fault what the content is" is no longer enough

So they were coerced into censoring their sites?

[husaberg]

So they were coerced into censoring their sites?

Its not cemsorship if i'ts removes abuse.
its also not censorship if its in the terms and conditions the user signed.

[Katman]

Its not cemsorship if i'ts removes abuse.
its also not censorship if its in the terms and conditions the user signed.

But are you suggesting they were threatened with the removal of privileges if they didn't remove certain content from their sites?

Because if you are, that sounds like the very definition of coercion.

And censorship.

[husaberg]

But are you saying they were threatened with the removal of privileges if they didn't remove certain content from their sites?

Because if you are, that sounds like the very definition of coercion.

And censorship.

No there are merely reminding them of their obligations to upheld all parts of the constitution.
Because under section 230 they are granted privileges relating to content filtering but that comes at a cost that they have to be seen enforcing their own rules they have in place to protect the other first amendment rights of their citizens.
Did you not understand that?

Also its pretty hard to push the freedom of the press angle when thy dont have to comply with the same checks and balances the press has too.
I can see why you cant understand how that works as you are only interested in free Speech when it suits you.
Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the other parts of the Constitution before making such generations about the right to free speech.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT 14

[1.] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


AMENDMENT 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[TheDemonLord]

And if only you could write coherently we could have one.

Are you struggling to understand

Except that's not been my point. You're trying the same Strawman that Husa is/was.

If so - perhaps you might want to go back to read about Spot the Dog.

the derogatory phrases are your interpretation, and they certainly are not racist or sexist. Could it be, that such white male supremacy behavior is part of the reason Alex Jones was banned? A reason you absolutely want to keep out of the discussion as it invalidates your mutterings about martyrdom...

It's discriminating based on Race and Sex - Therefore, it's Racist and Sexist.

Why are you so eager to make it about Race and Sex? Unless you are a Racist, Sexist.

The only thing that I've mentioned about Martyrdom is:

a large part of his schtick was that powerful organizations are working together for their own nefarious purposes, are screwing over the little guy to do so and are going to be coming after Him for 'exposing' it.

And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

See how there is no Race or Sex involved in that argument.