Laura Ingraham defends white supremacist, blames others.

[USincognito]

The OP has been edited because the background information was apparently confusing for too many people.

This is what Conservative punditry and the "help help we're being oppressed" tropes have come to. In a segment where Laura Ingraham defends a fake video portraying Speaker Pelosi in an unflattering light and Facebook's decision not to remove it, she then segued into how poor oppressed Conservatives are being silenced by social media.

One of them was white supremacist Paul Nehlen.
Fox News stands by Laura Ingraham after she defends white supremacist, other extremists on her prime time show - CNN
He, among with others were glowingly described by Ingraham as, "people who believe in border enforcement, people who believe in national sovereignty".

After being taken to task, primarily for Nehlen, what was her response? To blame CNN for showing some of Nehlen's Tweets in a segment discussing her defense of him.

She's currently being roasted for it in the comments on Twitter.

 

[JCFantasy23]

actor James Woods who was banned from Twitter for a TOS violation

I did follow James on Twitter and was sorry to see him go, although it was just a matter of time since he is a conservative and I do agree Twitter cracks down harder on them.

His tweet was quoting from the TV show 'The Wire' paraphrasing Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Be careful with any poetry lines on Twitter, folks.

He's refusing to come back, which I kind of get. If they keep censoring and fine-tooth combing everything, it's not worth it.

Meanwhile liberal actors like Jim Carey seem to be able to tweet with impunity, even with cartoons murdering governors as infants, saying 'I think if you're going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama'. He painted this image, which is disturbing enough.

Jokes about death threats are fine, but no quoting TV shows or poetry for conservatives.

I would be surprised if anyone did try to argue that there isn't an unfair balance with posts on select social media platforms. Even Facebook was called out on it about Diamond and Silk.

 

[Albion]

Her rogues gallery included anti-Muslim Laura Loomer, L'enfant terrible Milo Yiannopoulos, actor James Woods who was banned from Twitter for a TOS violation, Alex Jones who thinks the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag operation by so-called "crisis actors" and white supremacist Paul Nehlen.

I understand. Your idea of free speech, a Constitution right, seems to be that the people who speak in favor of something you like...should be allowed to speak. Meanwhile, those who hold contrary positions are not to be allowed that right. Because we don't like what they have to say.

Interestingly enough, FREE speech is a right because of our society's conviction that once the majority or the mob is able to stifle the speech of some people, the rights of no people to speak are guaranteed.

 

[Gene2memE]

I understand. Your idea of free speech, a Constitution right, seems to be that the people who speak in favor of something you like...should be allowed to speak. Meanwhile, those who hold contrary positions are not to be allowed that right. Because we don't like what they have to say.

Interestingly enough, FREE speech is a right because of our society's conviction that once the majority or the mob is able to stifle the speech of some people, the rights of no people to speak are guaranteed.

Is Twitter a branch of the US government?

 

[USincognito]

I understand. Your idea of free speech, a Constitution right {snip}

Go ahead and post a swear word or an offensive photo in your next post here on CF and get back to me.

(Let me know if I'm being too subtle.)

 

[USincognito]

I did follow James on Twitter and was sorry to see him go, although it was just a matter of time since he is a conservative and I do agree Twitter cracks down harder on them.

His tweet was quoting from the TV show 'The Wire' paraphrasing Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Be careful with any poetry lines on Twitter, folks.

He's refusing to come back, which I kind of get. If they keep censoring and fine-tooth combing everything, it's not worth it.

Meanwhile liberal actors like Jim Carey seem to be able to tweet with impunity, even with cartoons murdering governors as infants, saying 'I think if you're going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama'. He painted this image, which is disturbing enough.

Jokes about death threats are fine, but no quoting TV shows or poetry for conservatives.

I would be surprised if anyone did try to argue that there isn't an unfair balance with posts on select social media platforms. Even Facebook was called out on it about Diamond and Silk.

All this is nice, but do you have any comments on Ingraham's defense of a white supremacist and her response to CNN reporting on her defense of a white supremacist?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Is Twitter a branch of the US government?

Does it matter as far as the results of its action goes?

 

[ItIsFinished!]

I did follow James on Twitter and was sorry to see him go, although it was just a matter of time since he is a conservative and I do agree Twitter cracks down harder on them.

His tweet was quoting from the TV show 'The Wire' paraphrasing Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Be careful with any poetry lines on Twitter, folks.

He's refusing to come back, which I kind of get. If they keep censoring and fine-tooth combing everything, it's not worth it.

Meanwhile liberal actors like Jim Carey seem to be able to tweet with impunity, even with cartoons murdering governors as infants, saying 'I think if you're going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama'. He painted this image, which is disturbing enough.

Jokes about death threats are fine, but no quoting TV shows or poetry for conservatives.

I would be surprised if anyone did try to argue that there isn't an unfair balance with posts on select social media platforms. Even Facebook was called out on it about Diamond and Silk.

Exactly.

 

[zephcom]

Does it matter as far as the results of it's action go?

Yeah, it does matter. I can't be put in prison by the government for saying Trump is a buffoon. But if Twitter had a section of their user agreement which said I couldn't call a sitting president a buffoon, they could delete my account.

Free speech is limited to government's attempts to silence people. And even the government's restrictions are not absolute. The classic response from the Judiciary is that government CAN make a law which prohibits someone from yelling, "Fire!!' in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire.

Trump, himself, requires people to sign a non-disclosure agreements before working for him which greatly limits free speech and it is totally legal.

Always keep in mind that freedom of speech is ONLY required of government.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Free speech is limited to government's attempts to silence people.

It is not. Efforts to silence dissenting speech are not inherently less repressive because they are carried out by the private sector rather than the public.

 

[zephcom]

It is not. Efforts to silence dissenting speech are not inherently less repressive because they are carried out by the private sector rather than the public.

But your RIGHT to free speech only applies to government.

Read it yourself:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't include social media...or any other private speech. You may not think it is right but that is the way it is.

 

[Pommer]

Efforts to silence dissenting speech

By whom?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

But your RIGHT to free speech only applies to government.

Read it yourself:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't include social media...or any other private speech. You may not think it is right but that is the way it is.

Well duh, it was written well over 200 years ago, when there was no social and the fact that you're quoting as the definitive word on the matter underlines the problem with your reasoning.

Firstly, since social media sites function as public utilities, the government has the right and duty to regulate them as such.

Also, we have antitrust laws that prevent private companies from engaging in anti-competitive practices. If the government has the authority to intervene to protect competition between business enterprises, how much more to does it have the authority to intervene to protect free competition in the marketplace of ideas, which the Constitution was initially designed to protect?

 

[zephcom]

Well duh, it was written well over 200 years ago, when there was no social and the fact that you're quoting as the definitive word on the matter underlines the problem with your reasoning.

Firstly, since social media sites function as public utilities, the government has the right and duty to regulate them as such.

Also, we have antitrust laws that prevent private companies from engaging in anti-competitive practices. If the government has the authority to intervene to protect competition between business enterprises, how much more to does it have the authority to intervene to protect free competition in the marketplace of ideas, which the Constitution was initially designed to protect?

Good luck with that. Any hail mary law suit is worth a try. But one should consider it a total lost of money if you can even find an attorney to take the case.

But as it stands right now, you are wrong. Social media is not considered public utilities. And given the huge number of social media, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting the courts to consider anti-trust issues.

But, hey, if you have money laying around you don't know what to do with, give it a try.

 

[inquiring mind]

All this is nice, but do you have any comments on Ingraham's defense of a white supremacist and her response to CNN reporting on her defense of a white supremacist?

I wonder why there is such a difference made between white supremacists, black activists, and all the other minority advocates? And, I didn't realize CNN was still on the air.

 

[Tanj]

Well duh, it was written well over 200 years ago, when there was no social and the fact that you're quoting as the definitive word on the matter underlines the problem with your reasoning.

Your reliance on a 200 year old document you point out is completely out of touch with reality underlines the problem with yours.

Firstly, since social media sites function as public utilities

No they don't.

the government has the right and duty to regulate them as such.

Small government for me, but not for thee!

 

[zephcom]

I wonder why there is such a difference made between white supremacists, black activists, and all the other minority advocates? And, I didn't realize CNN was still on the air.

I suspect that is because not all the groups you mention have the same motives. Take the White Supremacists and the Black Activists as an example. The White Supremacists want to be the only ones in charge of the nation. The Black Activists want anyone who is a citizen to be equally in charge of the nation.

Different goals is why they are treated differently. According to the American Constitution (Including all of its Amendments) the Black Activists have the intent of the Constitution on their side. The White Supremacists have the Republicans, the current president and most of the law on their side.

We get to watch and see whether the Constitution wins or the political will to ignore the Constitution wins.

We live in interesting times.

 

[Albion]

Is Twitter a branch of the US government?

The original post was all about how awful it was for Laura Ingraham to speak well of those people BECAUSE the writer not approve of like their beliefs. It was that mindset which I was commenting on.

 

[zephcom]

The original post was all about how awful it was for Laura Ingraham to speak well of those people BECAUSE the writer not approve of like their beliefs. It was that mindset which I was commenting on.

That is a common mindset in America. Jesus mentioned something about that once. I think it was something like taking the slab out of one's own eye before trying to take the speck out of the other person's eye.

I don't know why I brought that up. No one cares what Jesus taught anyway.

 

[USincognito]

I wonder why there is such a difference made between white supremacists, black activists, and all the other minority advocates?{snip}

Do you have any thoughts or comments on Ingraham's response to defending a white supremacist or not?