Are you in an Anti-Free speech state?

[NxNW]

Has Hunter denied the laptop?

He has never confirmed it.

 

[Bradskii]

Has Hunter denied the laptop?

Hey, go start yet another thread about it. And please, no 'but sir, he started it!'

 

[ralliann]

He has never confirmed it.

Has he denied it?

 

[NxNW]

Has he denied it?

He was such a mess in those days that he can't give a definitive answer. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser, of course.

 

[ralliann]

He was such a mess in those days that he can't give a definitive answer. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser, of course.

The acknowledgment in the news, and hearings, etc. The FBI has had it as well. The "hunter biden'slaptop" has been continuous for a very long time now. Democrat and republican. Not once has Hunter denied it. Isn't that pretty close to not denying it is his?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Jonathon Turley is a well respected legal scholar and professor.

Oh yeah, Perfesser 'I was for impeachment before I was against impeachment.'

 

[NxNW]

The acknowledgment in the news, and hearings, etc.

Since when does "the news" have the authority to confirm its existence? In which hearing did law enforcement confirm it?

The FBI has had it as well.

What exactly did the FBI have, and when and where did they have it?

The "hunter biden'slaptop" has been continuous for a very long time now.

What exactly has been continuous?

Democrat and republican.

What?

Not once has Hunter denied it. Isn't that pretty close to not denying it is his?

"Pretty close to not denying it" is an interesting concept. Please tell me more about it. But first, what's on this alleged laptop?

 

[ralliann]

Since when does "the news" have the authority to confirm its existence? In which hearing did law enforcement confirm it?

I never said it confirmed it. Rather they, Identified it, labeled it.

What exactly did the FBI have, and when and where did they have it?

Are you saying the laptop was not in the possession of the FBI, it after the computer store contacted authorities?

What exactly has been continuous?

The labeling, or identifying it as "hunter bidens laptop"

What?

The hearings concerning twitter etc, of censorship by government officials on social media. Calling it Russia propoganda that it existed.

"Pretty close to not denying it" is an interesting concept. Please tell me more about it. But first, what's on this alleged laptop?

Since the laptop has been continuously referred to as Hunters, and he has not denied it is interesting, that he would not allow it to be identified as his..

 

[essentialsaltes]

Are you saying the laptop was not in the possession of the FBI,

Speaking for myself, I am saying that 'a' laptop is in the possession of the FBI.

I don't think any new evidence has come to light on the question since that six months old post.

 

[NxNW]

I never said it confirmed it. Rather they, Identified it, labeled it.

No confirmation, then.

Are you saying the laptop was not in the possession of the FBI, it after the computer store contacted authorities?

I'm saying there has been no confirmation from the FBI.

The hearings concerning twitter etc, of censorship by government officials on social media. Calling it Russia propoganda that it existed.

No confirmation, then.

Since the laptop has been continuously referred to as Hunters, and he has not denied it is interesting, that he would not allow it to be identified as his..

Still no confirmation from someone in a position to do so.

 

[ralliann]

No confirmation, then.

I'm saying there has been no confirmation from the FBI.

No confirmation, then.

Still no confirmation from someone in a position to do so.

It is pretty easy to verify that. I think it is probably a matter of custody issues at this point, not so much property.. But ok.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, first we would need to have a discussion...

Good. You agreed. So discussions need to take place with social media companies so that agreement can be made to restrict certain content. That cannot happen unless you are in some sort of dialogue with them. So the brief needs to succeed to allow for that to happen.

 

[Vambram]

Oh yeah, Perfesser 'I was for impeachment before I was against impeachment.'

It is not uncommon for academicians, professors, and lawyers to change their opinions or beliefs within a 21+ year time period.

 

[Pommer]

It is not uncommon for academicians, professors, and lawyers to change their opinions or beliefs within a 21+ year time period.

Odd, that doesn’t sound “conservative“ at all.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not sure what in your mind would be the reasonable middle ground.

Of course people who make movies or tv shows have every right to cast whomever they wish for parts regardless of race, skin colour, sexuality or gender.
Of course public schools are looking to protect children from discrimination regardless of race, skin colour, sexuality or gender.

What I would see as a reasonable middle ground would be an environment in which people shouldn't be getting bent out of shape because a gay character exists in a book, while simultaneously understanding that it's not unreasonable for people to put the nix on books in Jr High Schools that feature illustrated erotica.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

I know this was a reply to someone else...

But how I see it is that the regulatory framework would need to take into account the "State Actor Doctrine"

State action - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Meaning, if the government wants to coerce or persuade a company to "do XYZ", then that company's actions would have to gel with the do's and dont's of what the government would be allowed to do.

There's a public interest in the government preventing bona fide threats that could violate the rights of someone else, however I don't think that power should extend to the government picking which ideas should "win" in the marketplace, using private companies as a proxy to suppress the competing ideas that they're not directly allowed to suppress themselves.

For instance... If someone made a death threat, that's something the government would be allowed to take direct action on themselves, so if they want to leverage the help of social media companies to track the source, I don't see a huge issue there...as that's in the normal purview of their delegated powers.

However, a government wouldn't be able to directly stop RFK from espousing a vaccine conspiracy, therefore, they're crossing a line if they're trying to coerce a private company to do it for them.

 

[Bradskii]

I know this was a reply to someone else...

But how I see it is that the regulatory framework would need to take into account the "State Actor Doctrine"

No problem. Although this thread was about whether they should be allowed to discuss any problems at all with the companies in question. Individual matters, and whether the authorities are justified in requesting the content be removed, must be dealt with individually.

 

[stevil]

What I would see as a reasonable middle ground would be an environment in which people shouldn't be getting bent out of shape because a gay character exists in a book, while simultaneously understanding that it's not unreasonable for people to put the nix on books in Jr High Schools that feature illustrated erotica.

OK, sure. I can agree with that.
But people aren't robots, they have emotions.

You cannot control people nor program their emotions. They are free to have emotions.
But government isn't there to control people, nor to pander.

I find it really weird that some people in USA blame the government for movies having gay characters. OR a mermaid with skin other than white.
If some people aren't ready to accept diversity, Then that is upto them, they don't have to watch the movies.

But govt is there to support a safe and stable society and so that means needing to protect people against racial hatred, against discrimination in the workplace or even the market place.

Beyond that, movie companies, social media companies are free to make their own choices and decisions. Govt is free to consult with them towards anti hatred, anti discrimination, anti misinformation that may lead to needless deaths. And these companies are free to ignore Govt if they wish.

Should erotica be in school libraries? No. But not all Trans or gay themes are erotica.
Society is diverse, some people are deeply prejudiced and conservative (close minded to differences, and change). Changing culture is a very difficult thing to do and comes with much resistance. But change in inevitable and acceptance takes time.
When Captain James T Kirk kissed Uhura in 1968. This came as a huge shock to many in USA. But now no one batters an eye lid.

 

[Bradskii]

When Captain James T Kirk kissed Uhura in 1968. This came as a huge shock to many in USA. But now no one batters an eye lid.

Maybe in the next film he should kiss Spock.

 

[stevil]

Maybe in the next film he should kiss Spock.

LOL, they did have some special spark going on.