Tucker Carlson and Trump Stun America—Powerful People Are Scared!

[holdover]

Would you prefer to be shot in the head by a good guy or bad guy?

 

[holdover]

The god dam DNC/deep state, is outsourcing censorship to its fucking donors for gods sake, clean the fucking wax out of your ears!

 

[Mosinitis]

Should the New York Times be required to publish you?

That's not free speech, that's compulsory speech.

This goes back to the days of public access channels. Cable companies are private companies, but they could not refuse because they didn't like the content.
Where does this stop? Can electric company shut off your service for the same reason?

 

[DoD1776]

I think someone needs to get to SCOTUS and fuck up these companies. Especially Twitter.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I think someone needs to get to SCOTUS and fuck up these companies. Especially Twitter.

Plenty on the left say the same about Fox.

No thanks.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Should the New York Times be required to publish you?

That's not free speech, that's compulsory speech.

No more than they should be able to make a coordinated effort to silence you and keep your message from getting out. They also shouldn't be able to do the journalistic equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater when the is no fire. However it hasn't stopped them from doing everything they can to broadcast lies and deception about a sitting president to further an agenda. That borders more on libel and isn't protected by the first.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I agree with you on a ton of stuff, Corgi, but this isn't one of them. But I do *cordially* disagree with you, and i do share the frustration, for what its worth.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I agree with you on a ton of stuff, Corgi, but this isn't one of them. But I do *cordially* disagree with you, and i do share the frustration, for what its worth.

All I ask is that you don't censor me, lol.

 

[BDinPutnam]

All I ask is that you don't censor me, lol.

STFU!

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Is anyone being forced to use social media or listen to mainstream media?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I can see both sides of this issue. @GOPerfect 's and @holdover 's.

The government shouldn't be controlling what private businesses do.

But at the same time, what happens when the government contacts out private businesses to infringe upon your rights because they cannot do so directly?

That's what is happening here. What's the solution? Open up your own media company? Sure. Let's do that. Wait. The big boys in the top 3 media companies won't let us. They'll put up roadblocks. They'll disparage us with lies. They'll slow down our connection. They'll bombard us with fake traffic, viruses, worms, ect.

I don't know what is the solution. What I do know is that they are winning. They control all communications.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

What I do know is that they are winning. They control all communications.

You sure about that? What happened in 2016 with them controlling everything?

 

[Marine Cpl]

You sure about that? What happened in 2016 with them controlling everything?

That's why they are now shutting down people like Alex Jones. As @holdover said, "They now realize the power of the internet." The internet bit them in the ass. They thought TV would influence an election. It didn't because of the internet and alternative news sites just like the one Alex Jones has.

 

[BDinPutnam]

@Willjr75 so basically- we should eliminate corporate social media and the press and require the government to provide those services instead?

What could possibly go wrong.

Not saying you actually said that but it's implied in your post even if you didn't mean it to be.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

@Willjr75 so basically- we should eliminate corporate social media and the press and require the government to provide those services instead?

What could possibly go wrong.

Not saying you actually said that but it's implied in your post even if you didn't mean it to be.

I don't think anyone is advocating that the government take things over and provide anything. That's certainly not what I was trying to say anyway.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Willjr75 so basically- we should eliminate corporate social media and the press and require the government to provide those services instead?

What could possibly go wrong.

Not saying you actually said that but it's implied in your post even if you didn't mean it to be.

I'm not saying that. I said that I didn't know what was the solution.

 

[holdover]

The answer is real simple , political speech cannot be banned . Like they used to do in America,How hard was that?

 

[GOPerfect]

That's 100% correct. But your missing the forest for the trees, this is not an ownership issue. Some people don't want jihadi Joe on their site. Ok, no problems, Some people don't like gun owners on their forums, OK .No sweat off my sack. That not what this is about.

Were talking about a group of the most powerful internet sites, Google , face book , you tube, ect simotainiously silencing a group of dissenters. Working in a group to suppress ideas . Repression.

Information is power, That's why governments spend trillions on intelligence agency's, If I can control the information you receive , I can control your perspective. If I ask what 2+2 is , you say 4. But if don't tell you the real equation is 2+2 -1 you will never have the correct answer. Ever. This is exactly what happens on your TV every night in 1080 HD.

Its Misplaced Political power ,

Exsample:

MasterCard and Visa, multi trillion dollar global corporations decide to pull accounts of certain political candidates , meaning they can no longer process donations using their cards. Maybe they did this on their own, maybe Russia or China decides they would not do business with them if they allowed a certain candidate to use their service. Well master card and visa isn't going to lose billions of dollars , So do they they do.

Now master card may still be pressured by outside elements ( or not) to apply pressure to some other forms of media.

Apply this this same thing through social media . Now again, we are not talking about one or two websites with a legitimate bitch , were talking about the top ten, in unison , influencing public knowledge and ability to silence whole groups of dissenters simultaneously across the net.

I cannot express the amount political power this group would possess, separated from government accountability.

What we are looking at here is the ability of global corporations to censor political groups through multimedia without accountability. How valuable is such a tool to political party's or foreign governments? legalized repression .

The problem is far to much political power would be placed into the hands of non accountable , non governmental entities that answer to no one.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

A govt can be repressive in any form : democratic, autocratic or downright dictatorship.The salient feature which defines the repressive govts is the lack of will on the part of govt to think and act for the betterment of the greater society and the country/state/kingdom as a whole - apathy.

This apathy, with time, grows into arrogance on the part of rulers, and they begin to think, the power bestowed upon them is their destiny. ( Hillary)And we know what happens when a person/persons have power without responsibility.

Repression can come in following ways:

• Deny basic rights of the people. For e.g prohibitive cost of food, living space and other necessary requirements.
• Discourage any such step which will empower the ordinary public. Discouraging people from education, free speech and unbiased media.
• Use the govt agencies such as intelligence agencies etc to terrorize people and keep them from revolting against the repression.
• Prevention of exchange of ideas among the populace, which in long term or short, can be detrimental to the authority of the ruler.
• Use economic policies to siphon off public money to govt treasury (and finally to a private account in swiss banks) with the means of heavy taxation, repressive financial policies.
• Strict control over information flow, in and out.
• Waging wars with other countries for vanity and let the public pull the burden.

Absolutely correct my friend. I may need readers on occasion, but I can definitely still see the forest.

I know what you are saying, I agree with the ideas behind your words. I do not know exactly what the answer is, I just know it cannot be us counting on the Government to do the right thing.

 

[GOPerfect]

You sure about that? What happened in 2016 with them controlling everything?

This is one of the reasons they are fighting back so hard. Trump never should have won. They are rethinking and re-tooling everything to ensure something like Trump never happens again

 

[holdover]

They had control with the mass media, they never understood the power of the internet until the day after the election. They've been pounding and pounding away with media, with Russia collusion story ect, Trumps numbers haven't moved. Its not working anymore. So they're going to put in a backdoor censor of the net . They are going to shut it down.

Man this is not about private ownership, this a power play . Having global corporations in charge of censoring the net is insane .I cant express how much power and influence they could have . loyal to the highest bidder.

 

[holdover]

Absolutely correct my friend. I may need readers on occasion, but I can definitely still see the forest.

I know what you are saying, I agree with the ideas behind your words. I do not know exactly what the answer is, I just know it cannot be us counting on the Government to do the right thing.

Oh I wasn't speaking to you directly. Just speaking in general.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Twitter, Google, Facebook, Et Al do not warrant or deserve rights. They wield too much power as it is. It would be different if it were clearly evident that that power were benevolent to free speech and all people but it clearly isn't. The people, on the other hand, have rights. If you want to argue that it has been ruled that corperations are people, then great, their rights only go so far as to when they infringe upon my rights. Same as you or I. I see that the idea of an amendment to STRENGTHEN the 1st amendment for the people, not regulate it, is a non starter for most of you. I don't understand why. Seems like a lot of people on here would be in favor of an amendment to strengthen the 2nd. Big business can be just as dangerous as big government. How would any of you feel if your ISP suddenly blocked you from seeing all of the websites you typically visit because they don't agree with them? Isn't what you see your choice to make? Or are you okay with these companies blocking things from you because they have a right to? No one on here logged on or signed up or is paying to have choices made for them. This is definitely not about refusing to bake a cake for someone. This is much bigger and much more dangerous. I wonder what level of scrutiny it would get in court?

 

[GOPerfect]

Twitter, Google, Facebook, Et Al do not warrant or deserve rights. They wield too much power as it is. It would be different if it were clearly evident that that power were benevolent to free speech and all people but it clearly isn't. The people, on the other hand, have rights. If you want to argue that it has been ruled that corperations are people, then great, their rights only go so far as to when they infringe upon my rights. Same as you or I. I see that the idea of an amendment to STRENGTHEN the 1st amendment for the people, not regulate it, is a non starter for most of you. I don't understand why. Seems like a lot of people on here would be in favor of an amendment to strengthen the 2nd. Big business can be just as dangerous as big government. How would any of you feel if your ISP suddenly blocked you for seeing all of the websites you typically visit because they don't agree with them? Isn't what you see your choice to make? Or are you okay with these companies blocking things from you because they have a right to? No one one here logged on or signed up or is paying to have choices made for them. This is definitely not about refusing to bake a cake for someone. This is much bigger and much more dangerous. I wonder what level of scrutiny it would get in court?

What would this new Amendment say? How would it be written?

 

[holdover]

I would hazard a guess that a law would state if you are a public forum with more than 20,000 members , that you cannot infringe upon peoples political speech .

would not apply to pay for service sites, exclusive clubs ect.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

What would this new Amendment say? How would it be written?

I would start with something like this: no industry, business or corporation, private or public may abridge or infringe on the rights of the people enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[GOPerfect]

I would start with something like this: no industry, business or corporation, private or public may abridge or infringe on the rights of the people enumerated in the Constitution.

Would that only apply to the First Amendment? Or all of the Rights?

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Would that only apply to the First Amendment? Or all of the Rights?

the rights of the people enumerated in the Constitution.
And, I would add @GOPerfect that that would not mean you would have to cater to everyone who wanted your services. You just couldn't deny them their civil rights. Remember, a gay wedding cake isn't a right.

 

[BDinPutnam]

the rights of the people enumerated in the Constitution.
And, I would add @GOPerfect that that would not mean you would have to cater to everyone who wanted your services. You just couldn't deny them their civil rights. Remember, a gay wedding cake isn't a right.

So in your cake shop I can put whatever signs I want in your window.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

So in your cake shop I can put whatever signs I want in your window.

So your ISP can decide what you can view?

 

[GOPerfect]

So your ISP can decide what you can view?

YES!