• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Are you in an Anti-Free speech state?

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,927
5,737
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟375,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

The illustration y'all are talking about is nothing more than a distraction.

Unless y'all can demonstrate otherwise, there are not any objections towards Democratic OR Republican officials, and/or government agencies "meeting with social network companies to help prevent disgusting sexual content by perverts and homosexuals being made available to children and to help prevent our elderly being scammed out of their money and to stop them showing graphic violent videos to our kids."
 
Last edited:
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,229
2,592
✟267,174.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Quite a few states there. It will be interesting to see how it lines up with those that want to disenfranchise voters. But I think the Supreme court will weigh in before they go through the list.
 
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,927
5,737
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟375,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's your thread. Why haven't you read the brief?
I have read the brief. And I do believe that there is a clear distinction between discussions with social media platforms by agents of government agencies and then the same said government agencies and agents causing censorship and suppression on social media sites. However, it is also clear that it was too easy for Twitter and other social media platforms to be used, manipulated, or influenced by those employees of the government agencies in order to suppress and censor lawful free speech.
 
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Unless y'all can demonstrate otherwise, there are not any objections towards Democratic OR Republican officials, and/or government agencies "meeting with social network companies...
The Missouri lawsuit resulted in an injunction 'barring...federal officials from participating in this important discourse.' So the lawsuit specifically prevents what you say it doesn't. It's there on Page 1 of the brief. Which goes on to request the court reverse that decision.

There are then a few pages detailing the types of content which has already been mutually agreed between government officials and the companies as being undesirable. And they were the type of content that I've mentioned previously.

That's the whole story. That's it. All the complaints about freedom of speech are just a nonsensical smoke and mirrors distraction.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,927
5,737
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟375,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"That's the whole story. That's it. All the complaints about freedom of speech are just a nonsensical smoke and mirrors distraction."


Clearly, the 5th Circuit Court disagrees with you, and later in 2024, we shall learn what the SCOTUS justices believe about this case.
 
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The lawsuit says nothing about why unlawful free speech should not be censored or suppressed.
Free speech is not the issue. The term isn't even used in the 30+ pages of arguments and examples in the brief. Your use of it, and the use of it in the article to which you linked is a dog whistle.

The issue is only whether recognised government officials can enter into discourse with social media companies to determine what is and what is not suitable content. Nothing else.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,927
5,737
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟375,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Apparently, there are federal judges who disagree with your opinion. Please do not attempt to distract this discussion by talking about symbolic "dog whistles."
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The choice is that any social media company can post any content they like with zero regulations. Predators trolling for kids, scams, porn, live screening of shootings...you name it. It's all in that brief. Or there are some controls. That's it.

Only a fool would select the first option. Now if you want to pick the second and argue about what the limits of those controls should be then I'm all ears.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,229
2,592
✟267,174.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Apparently, there are federal judges who disagree with your opinion. Please do not attempt to distract this discussion by talking about symbolic "dog whistles."
Page 2)
Since the advent of social media, government and private companies have often shared information and engaged in dialogue about best practices in mitigating the spread of harmful content on social-media platforms. In this lawsuit brought by respondents Missouri, Louisiana, and several individuals, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Doughty, J.) issued a sweeping preliminary injunction barring thousands of federal officials from participating in this important discourse. On appeal, the Fifth Circuitlargely maintained the terms of the district court’s injunction and upheld the district court’s core holding that many of the federal defendants had either “coerced” or “significantly encouraged” social-media platforms to “censor” protected speech.
 
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Apparently, there are federal judges who disagree with your opinion.
The judges opined that the government had overstepped what they considered to be reasonable in persuading companies that content was undesirable. So they said no more discussions. The brief wants to reverse that decision.

Again, if you want to discuss how we control what a government does in persuading a company to delete content then I'd like to hear it. It's an important discussion to have. But if you say you don't want any regulations then I've no interest in discussing anything further.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Unlawful speech breaks the law and is not supported by the First Amendment protections. It really is not that difficult to figure out.
Yeah, something unlawful generally does break the law. But we aren't talking about unlawful content. We are talking about undesirable content.

Want to talk about who decides what is undesirable? OK. But don't waste my time if your opinion is that there should be no controls.
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,927
5,737
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟375,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Please see post #51 from ralliann which is a post I have reacted to with an "agree" checkmark.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Please see post #51 from ralliann which is a post I have reacted to with an "agree" checkmark.
Yeah, I already explained what the judges had decided and why. But then they went on to say 'no more discussions'.

Let me make this simple. We're not talking about illegal content here. That's already covered by the relevant laws. We're talking about what you and I would both agree is undesirable content. Yes, we would definitely disagree on some matters. But we'd surely agree on others. So do you agree that there should be some controls? Or do we give any existing or new social media company free reign to post any content at all.

What do you say?
 
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,927
5,737
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟375,306.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, first we would need to have a discussion, or agreement, about what is undesirable content as compared to unlawful content.
Then, we ought to think about this question, even if lawful who gets to decide if something is undesirable or not? Whether or not something is desirable or undesirable can be really different depending upon the values, morals, and beliefs from one person compared to another.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,288
15,965
72
Bondi
✟376,731.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There would be examples, like a maniac live screening a shooting at a school for example, that we'd both agree shouldn't be shown. I think we'd probably disagree on most things but there are some where we'd say 'No, this is definitely wrong.'

So on that basis, we'd agree that there should be some sort of controls. But exactly what they are, what they cover and how they are implemented etc would need to be discussed. Agreed?
 
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
7,111
4,946
NW
✟265,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It appears to me that, unless someone were to walk up to you and place the infamous Hunter Biden laptop in your own hands, you will always claim that this laptop is a fantasy instead of a reality.
I'd settle for a photo or an actual acknowledgement from law enforcement.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
7,111
4,946
NW
✟265,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There would be examples, like a maniac live screening a shooting at a school for example, that we'd both agree shouldn't be shown.

I think school shootings should be shown. The right wants to suppress the grim reality of these events, but if it were made available to the public, opinion would change.
 
Upvote 0