Further, Fox News, for example, has Left-leaning staff; e.g. Donna Brazile, who was fired from Left-leaning CNN for disclosure of debate questions to Hillary. Fox News ROUTINELY invites liberals to debate issues, whereas other media does not routinely do so. Only OCCASIONALLY are conservative speakers interviewed on Fake News media outlets.
Why should any news org have immunity from suits? To protect their 1st Amendment rights. What ends their immunity? Bias and lies that violate the basic principle of freedom of speech; i.e. harmful speech.
Captain Kangaroo, clueless as always.
The issue is censorship. Fox News doesn’t censor anyone. Neither does talk radio.
But Facebook and Twitter DO censor people, including lots of sensible conservatives like Dennis Praeger.
Try to keep up. (Maybe go back to church when they talk about telling the truth.)
The point is not the bias or reporters, it’s in the bias of removals of these people, or firings of people, etc.
Your what aboutism doesn’t even come close to applying. You’re basically saying:
The world is biased, so is Fox News and everyone!
So we can’t fix it when someone’s bias starts to have public harm? Facebook has become a mammoth of a public platform. This is a good thing.
I might add, while you have made people that say such things an enemy, and are one sided politically, which caused this leftist explosion:
Saturday, Biden finally did one of the parameters I said would make me vote democrat, and the week before that, he technically did another.
As things stand now, I’ll be voting Biden.
I insert this, because I told you all here what would make me support a democrat, and asked you, and Ron, what would make you support a republican.
I bring this up because you are now flipping on what democrats believed in the 1990’s to 2000’s. They wanted to stop corporations from opposing the little guy by hiring or firing, they wanted an elimination of bias, which at the time, they perceived was against liberals. They wanted businesses to make business decisions. That is appropriate, this is the right move to make. If you on the left jump on board with this, I’ll support the left and Biden. If you go the other way, well, this falls into one of the things I cannot allow.
Facebook ties into the academic tyranny I see on the left, the same category, and it must be put in check.
You here on the left, and even the right, have to get more balanced. I’m really tired of it.
I’m ok with them banning Alex Jones. The man is an absolute nutcase and his followers that believe his whacked-out conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, 9/11 and the Deep State are dangerous.
No, they aren’t dangerous, and this is where it always starts, it being regulation of people and shutting down opponents you don’t like.
Crazy people like Alex Jones should be out there, and publicly for you to see. That way you can contradict them when your children run into them. As opposed to social groups you have no clue where they are and shadowy figures. You are wrong about this.
i respect your opinion, though I disagree with it. I believe that anyone who incites others into believing that a mass school shooting was a hoax devised by the anti gun lobby to the point where his followers send the parents of dead children death threats is a dangerous person. The fact that he’s visible and obviously crazy to the majority of us is irrelevant…there are enough people who take him seriously and are willing to act on it to make him dangerous. Please explain how I’m wrong.
Not acceptable. At all. Any regulation of what opinions are ok or are inciting puts them all on the table.
Also: Him being taken seriously on a school shooting being a hoax harms no one. That is just crazy.
You explain to me the risk. The risk is unacceptable beliefs as it stands now, and you want to shut down those who have them.
Who will determine what is unacceptable? Where is the line? A common sense one cannot be drawn. If you cannot give me something that can be a new structure, I will not approve it on a “this one scenario sounds bad” basis, because that leaves the world to dust. Structure works. What you just put up doesn’t.
“Also: Him being taken seriously on a school shooting being a hoax harms no one. ”
I’d call the parents of the dead children having to deal with death threats and harassment “harm”, but maybe you have a different threshold
June 24, 2019 at 5:01 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
7
“I’d call the parents of the dead children having to deal with death threats and harassment “harm”, but maybe you have a different threshold”
Alex Jones is not causing people to harass the families. People who take such actions are generally unstable people. They will be unstable on one thing or the other.
I would call your assessment ignorant placement of blame.
Here’s my take: He pushes a conspiracy theory where a bunch of equally disgusting people take it upon themselves to harass the parents of dead children. Those people send the parents death threats and subject them to other forms of harassment. Even after being sued and saying that he now believes Sandy Hook was real, the damage has been done. I’ve never had to bury one of my children (and sincerely hope you haven’t either), but imagine losing a child in one of the most horrific situations imaginable, only to be told “it never happened” and be accused of being an actor in order to help the government take away our 2nd amendment rights? It’s truly sick.
It’s like why you can’t shout “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater when there’s no actual fire…paranoia can ensue, and people can get hurt. When your speech directly leads to others getting hurt, that’s where your right to free speech ends.
Just my take. I do sincerely wish you well.
June 20, 2019 at 10:25 am
Vox says:
Like or Dislike:
9
5
I’m no conservative but I do hate the tech giants. In any event, the giants should let the right show their true colors, ad nauseam . The worse they get, all the better.
Put down the bong, Caldude. Tax policy is not at play here. The immunity they are talking about is the immunity from litigation if they show bias against certain people. If they were censoring liberal speech, you and all your friends would be mad as hell (but since you no longer have any principles you stand by, you are just fine with censoring conservatives).
Tax churches like the businesses they are. We need monies to back fill the egregious debt load this current administration is piling on my children and grandchildren.
Churches do more to help the poor than any other organization if you count the charitable contributions of the parishioners. You could look it up if you weren’t already aware of it. Multiple studies show that religious people give more time and money to charity than non-religious people. That’s why conservative giving is so much greater than liberal giving. (Although to be fair, religious liberals give as much as religious conservatives.) And much of this money is through church donations.
You want to hurt the poor by taking some of that money?
How about we tax the “non-profits” that are just fronts for partisan political action? You know, the ones dividing this country in two.
The Church can have a religious belief tied to politicians, and they should be able to say when one is against their beliefs.
Facebook is a platform now. Their bias removes people entirely, and is not the same as a Church’s belief. Removing people that don’t agree with Facebook, and otherwise stopping banks from associating with subscribe star (which is widely believed to have happened) while dominating the sphere so no other tech firm can oppose you, and silencing one side, is something that needs to be regulated.
Churches saying who is against the religion isn’t. If they said something like “no communion if you don’t vote Biden” I might agree with you. However, they are FAR too regulated right now (in that they can’t speak on it at all or lose tax status)
Michael Beckerman’s comment is a brain twister that doesn’t make a lick of sense. He’s making a Free Speech vs Illegal Activity comparison. They are two totally different camps. This law is about protecting free speech.
“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president of the Internet Association, which represents Google, Facebook and Twitter. “That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”
Just another dishonest lefty, pretending he has “no choice” to host reprehensible speech (which he will later define as anything the Left doesn’t like).
The lefty Tech giants have systematically banned Conservative opinion. They do nothing against the hateful, vile lefties that permeate their sites. We know what side they are on. Break em up into tiny pieces.
wait – i am confused. did cicero say the GOP was for no government at all or just small government because i am pretty sure what he posted is totally right and your reply was just you flying off the handle for no reason
How about instead of gotcha’s and bull, you debate what is best for the scenario?
You are far too distracted by trying to go ah ha! To Craig.
The GOP is for smaller government, as a rule of thumb, but this clearly does not mean no government. And you clearly aren’t for that either. What Facebook has been doing, as well as youtube, is not good. Have you even been paying attention? Or do you just not care because it’s one less conservative out there? I expect it’s the latter rather than the former, and that is what is so concerning, especially considering how you are treating Craig on the matter.
Being about small government – try to pay attention and think – does not mean that every function of government should be abolished. I know, I know, being a Leftist means never having to think, but still, give it a go.
And all of my other comments about the fairies on the Left are spot on. The suppression of ideas is 100% a Leftist position.
Duh, the Left is the one banning speech, deleting videos, forcing out conservative professors from college campuses, refusing to air Trump’s Opening Campaign rally (the first time in history).
The LEFT are the snowflakes with the Safe Spaces and fear of anyone that disagrees with them.
I am not sure that censorship is the solution to censorship. These companies are evidently suppressing conservative speech that they disagree with, however, they are private platforms and have the right to do so. No one is forced to jump on twitter or facebook. If anything this should motivate conservatives to create alternative social media platforms. Certain fringe Democrats have been trying to push the Fairness Doctrine into talk radio for decades now. I don’t think the solution is to push a conservative version of the fairness doctrine into the social media space.
This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the forum for those who violate the terms of participation.
My question is this; When will we lose freedom of speech? I cannot stand the people on the radio or tv I know to be lying. Simple solution; I change the channel. I’m not so sure I want the government, or the consensus, telling me what I can and can’t watch or hear. I heard a great example of this on the radio not long ago. The issue was the potential ‘Equality Law’ that could be passed someday. The example given was if a Preacher is telling his congregation homosexuality is wrong, he could be fined and/or jailed under the Equality Law. His freedom of speech will have become Hate Speech. This applies to anyone questioning anything. If someone is absolutely proven to be a liar, or creating fake news, I hope they are terminated and exposed. If they are touting their belief, even if I disagree with their belief, they should be protected under Freedom of Speech. Alex Jones crossed the line in numerous ways and is being prosecuted. His isn’t a case of Freedom of Speech when he is asking his followers to harass & harm the people involved in Sandy Hook and other places.
And, so what about Faux Newz and Right Wing Hate Radio?
There are no such things. Your TDS is causing hallucinations, again.
Further, Fox News, for example, has Left-leaning staff; e.g. Donna Brazile, who was fired from Left-leaning CNN for disclosure of debate questions to Hillary. Fox News ROUTINELY invites liberals to debate issues, whereas other media does not routinely do so. Only OCCASIONALLY are conservative speakers interviewed on Fake News media outlets.
Why should any news org have immunity from suits? To protect their 1st Amendment rights. What ends their immunity? Bias and lies that violate the basic principle of freedom of speech; i.e. harmful speech.
Captain Kangaroo, clueless as always.
The issue is censorship. Fox News doesn’t censor anyone. Neither does talk radio.
But Facebook and Twitter DO censor people, including lots of sensible conservatives like Dennis Praeger.
Try to keep up. (Maybe go back to church when they talk about telling the truth.)
The point is not the bias or reporters, it’s in the bias of removals of these people, or firings of people, etc.
Your what aboutism doesn’t even come close to applying. You’re basically saying:
The world is biased, so is Fox News and everyone!
So we can’t fix it when someone’s bias starts to have public harm? Facebook has become a mammoth of a public platform. This is a good thing.
I might add, while you have made people that say such things an enemy, and are one sided politically, which caused this leftist explosion:
Saturday, Biden finally did one of the parameters I said would make me vote democrat, and the week before that, he technically did another.
As things stand now, I’ll be voting Biden.
I insert this, because I told you all here what would make me support a democrat, and asked you, and Ron, what would make you support a republican.
I bring this up because you are now flipping on what democrats believed in the 1990’s to 2000’s. They wanted to stop corporations from opposing the little guy by hiring or firing, they wanted an elimination of bias, which at the time, they perceived was against liberals. They wanted businesses to make business decisions. That is appropriate, this is the right move to make. If you on the left jump on board with this, I’ll support the left and Biden. If you go the other way, well, this falls into one of the things I cannot allow.
Facebook ties into the academic tyranny I see on the left, the same category, and it must be put in check.
You here on the left, and even the right, have to get more balanced. I’m really tired of it.
I’m ok with them banning Alex Jones. The man is an absolute nutcase and his followers that believe his whacked-out conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, 9/11 and the Deep State are dangerous.
No, they aren’t dangerous, and this is where it always starts, it being regulation of people and shutting down opponents you don’t like.
Crazy people like Alex Jones should be out there, and publicly for you to see. That way you can contradict them when your children run into them. As opposed to social groups you have no clue where they are and shadowy figures. You are wrong about this.
i respect your opinion, though I disagree with it. I believe that anyone who incites others into believing that a mass school shooting was a hoax devised by the anti gun lobby to the point where his followers send the parents of dead children death threats is a dangerous person. The fact that he’s visible and obviously crazy to the majority of us is irrelevant…there are enough people who take him seriously and are willing to act on it to make him dangerous. Please explain how I’m wrong.
Rob,
Not acceptable. At all. Any regulation of what opinions are ok or are inciting puts them all on the table.
Also: Him being taken seriously on a school shooting being a hoax harms no one. That is just crazy.
You explain to me the risk. The risk is unacceptable beliefs as it stands now, and you want to shut down those who have them.
Who will determine what is unacceptable? Where is the line? A common sense one cannot be drawn. If you cannot give me something that can be a new structure, I will not approve it on a “this one scenario sounds bad” basis, because that leaves the world to dust. Structure works. What you just put up doesn’t.
“Also: Him being taken seriously on a school shooting being a hoax harms no one. ”
I’d call the parents of the dead children having to deal with death threats and harassment “harm”, but maybe you have a different threshold
“I’d call the parents of the dead children having to deal with death threats and harassment “harm”, but maybe you have a different threshold”
Alex Jones is not causing people to harass the families. People who take such actions are generally unstable people. They will be unstable on one thing or the other.
I would call your assessment ignorant placement of blame.
“That is just crazy.”
“that” being the belief Alex Jones has. Not you.
i appreciate the response and the civility.
Here’s my take: He pushes a conspiracy theory where a bunch of equally disgusting people take it upon themselves to harass the parents of dead children. Those people send the parents death threats and subject them to other forms of harassment. Even after being sued and saying that he now believes Sandy Hook was real, the damage has been done. I’ve never had to bury one of my children (and sincerely hope you haven’t either), but imagine losing a child in one of the most horrific situations imaginable, only to be told “it never happened” and be accused of being an actor in order to help the government take away our 2nd amendment rights? It’s truly sick.
It’s like why you can’t shout “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater when there’s no actual fire…paranoia can ensue, and people can get hurt. When your speech directly leads to others getting hurt, that’s where your right to free speech ends.
Just my take. I do sincerely wish you well.
I’m no conservative but I do hate the tech giants. In any event, the giants should let the right show their true colors, ad nauseam . The worse they get, all the better.
This is the correct attitude to take, let them do what they do.
However, it does reveal your anti right bias. I say “Let ANYONE do what they do, and they will look like fools” because it goes both ways.
The day churches lose tax immunity due to political bias is the day we will be getting somewhere.
Put down the bong, Caldude. Tax policy is not at play here. The immunity they are talking about is the immunity from litigation if they show bias against certain people. If they were censoring liberal speech, you and all your friends would be mad as hell (but since you no longer have any principles you stand by, you are just fine with censoring conservatives).
Tax churches like the businesses they are. We need monies to back fill the egregious debt load this current administration is piling on my children and grandchildren.
Churches do more to help the poor than any other organization if you count the charitable contributions of the parishioners. You could look it up if you weren’t already aware of it. Multiple studies show that religious people give more time and money to charity than non-religious people. That’s why conservative giving is so much greater than liberal giving. (Although to be fair, religious liberals give as much as religious conservatives.) And much of this money is through church donations.
You want to hurt the poor by taking some of that money?
How about we tax the “non-profits” that are just fronts for partisan political action? You know, the ones dividing this country in two.
Not the same thing. Not at all.
The Church can have a religious belief tied to politicians, and they should be able to say when one is against their beliefs.
Facebook is a platform now. Their bias removes people entirely, and is not the same as a Church’s belief. Removing people that don’t agree with Facebook, and otherwise stopping banks from associating with subscribe star (which is widely believed to have happened) while dominating the sphere so no other tech firm can oppose you, and silencing one side, is something that needs to be regulated.
Churches saying who is against the religion isn’t. If they said something like “no communion if you don’t vote Biden” I might agree with you. However, they are FAR too regulated right now (in that they can’t speak on it at all or lose tax status)
Michael Beckerman’s comment is a brain twister that doesn’t make a lick of sense. He’s making a Free Speech vs Illegal Activity comparison. They are two totally different camps. This law is about protecting free speech.
“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president of the Internet Association, which represents Google, Facebook and Twitter. “That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”
Just another dishonest lefty, pretending he has “no choice” to host reprehensible speech (which he will later define as anything the Left doesn’t like).
The lefty Tech giants have systematically banned Conservative opinion. They do nothing against the hateful, vile lefties that permeate their sites. We know what side they are on. Break em up into tiny pieces.
My main focus is seeing if anyone can stop Facebook from enlisting Cambridge Analytica to (again) throw the election.
thought the GOP was about small government and deregulation; when did they become such snowflakes?
wait – i am confused. did cicero say the GOP was for no government at all or just small government because i am pretty sure what he posted is totally right and your reply was just you flying off the handle for no reason
It’s just Craig moving the goal posts again.
How about instead of gotcha’s and bull, you debate what is best for the scenario?
You are far too distracted by trying to go ah ha! To Craig.
The GOP is for smaller government, as a rule of thumb, but this clearly does not mean no government. And you clearly aren’t for that either. What Facebook has been doing, as well as youtube, is not good. Have you even been paying attention? Or do you just not care because it’s one less conservative out there? I expect it’s the latter rather than the former, and that is what is so concerning, especially considering how you are treating Craig on the matter.
Being about small government – try to pay attention and think – does not mean that every function of government should be abolished. I know, I know, being a Leftist means never having to think, but still, give it a go.
And all of my other comments about the fairies on the Left are spot on. The suppression of ideas is 100% a Leftist position.
Duh, the Left is the one banning speech, deleting videos, forcing out conservative professors from college campuses, refusing to air Trump’s Opening Campaign rally (the first time in history).
The LEFT are the snowflakes with the Safe Spaces and fear of anyone that disagrees with them.
I am not sure that censorship is the solution to censorship. These companies are evidently suppressing conservative speech that they disagree with, however, they are private platforms and have the right to do so. No one is forced to jump on twitter or facebook. If anything this should motivate conservatives to create alternative social media platforms. Certain fringe Democrats have been trying to push the Fairness Doctrine into talk radio for decades now. I don’t think the solution is to push a conservative version of the fairness doctrine into the social media space.
This is a reminder of the comment section rules that are meant to encourage civil discourse. In particular, please be advised that ad hominem or other personal attacks against other users are a violation of the rules of the forum, even when the attacks are included in otherwise on-topic comments. Personal attacks include targeting another with offensive, obscene, libelous, defamatory or threatening language or slurs; assigning false or unwanted labels to another; questioning another’s character, integrity, morals or intelligence; disclosing another’s personal information; or assuming or assigning to another user a particular political, personal, social, religious or other motive.
Also, comments that are part of extended and repetitive squabbles between two and/or among small cliques of commenters are also inappropriate use of this forum.
This forum is also to be used only in a noncommercial manner.
In short, please address topics and express opinions while refraining from labeling or negatively or falsely characterizing others with whom you may disagree. If you can’t state your view without insulting another user, don’t state it.
Users remain solely responsible for the content of their communications. Insurance Journal has the right but not the obligation to monitor and edit or remove any forum comments or content.
Insurance Journal has the right to suspend access to the forum for those who violate the terms of participation.
My question is this; When will we lose freedom of speech? I cannot stand the people on the radio or tv I know to be lying. Simple solution; I change the channel. I’m not so sure I want the government, or the consensus, telling me what I can and can’t watch or hear. I heard a great example of this on the radio not long ago. The issue was the potential ‘Equality Law’ that could be passed someday. The example given was if a Preacher is telling his congregation homosexuality is wrong, he could be fined and/or jailed under the Equality Law. His freedom of speech will have become Hate Speech. This applies to anyone questioning anything. If someone is absolutely proven to be a liar, or creating fake news, I hope they are terminated and exposed. If they are touting their belief, even if I disagree with their belief, they should be protected under Freedom of Speech. Alex Jones crossed the line in numerous ways and is being prosecuted. His isn’t a case of Freedom of Speech when he is asking his followers to harass & harm the people involved in Sandy Hook and other places.
Someone on the radio was ranting about a law that doesn’t exist but that could pass someday? Consider the source.