Simple succinct response. Sums it up perfectly without paragraphs of explanation. We are of like mind.
Printable View
This thread is a joke, right?
What makes you ask that?
I never answer a question in response to a question I posed in response to a question. :shrug:
So how are we supposed to know what you mean? It is a little ambiguous.
There. I ended without a question. You should feel free to answer.
Dave is a democrat and he knows it. He needs to come out of the closet.:flip:
I'm surely not a republican at this point but I don't believe that by default I become a Democrat. :dunno:
Oh. Okeydoke. I appreciate the reply. Thank you!!
Not just this thread but I've been working my way through multiple ones and WOW..
I can't believe some of the things I'm reading.
Multiple people on here are stating that they're okay with taking somebody's first amendment rights away because they don't agree with what they have to say.. that's just disgusting.
I think everybody needs to take a step back and stop with the Republican and Democrat BS.
First and foremost we are Americans start acting like it.
There is no First Amendment issue in this thread.
The First Amendment is about government restrictions on speech. The companies here are private entities. They can ban anyone they want and never run afoul of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is not absolute, like most things there are limits.
Yeah, and it’s too important to lose.
The 1st. Amendment problem we now see is ; time has changed the way we [ mass ] communicate . The internet has become the news site for a great majority of all people . Not just Americans. Therefore a privately owned site, ie. F Book , Twitter or Parler has because of the mass usage become a defacto news source equal to any T V or Radio Station [ which can be required to broadcast a Presidential speach ] now that may be restricted to a National Emergency , I'm not sure .. To restrict ANYONES access to them is in effect denying them the ability to speak and when the person being denied access is the President , then it becomes a questionable act and is in effect suppression of speech.
I've seen enough anti-Republican stuff online lately that's causing me to wonder if we're overacting on assigning blame. I'm not pointing any fingers here, my friends. I just think we need to be careful.
Yes, I think Trump was corrupt. And, there are Republicans in office who blindly followed him over a cliff. But, not all of them did that. For, we need to be vigilant to ensure all politicians stay within the lines. It is, and will be, an endless task. And, as citizens, we have the right to watch closely over their shoulders while they work for us.
Keep up the good work.
Hunter
The amount of usage doesn't change fundamental rights of ownership. That's why when Parler sued Amazon Web Service for getting shut down, they raised no First Amendment arguments.
The President has no right to demand he be allowed to use private property. He is subject to the same Terms of Agreement that everyone else has.
A guy that can call a news conference and 10 minutes later be carried live on all national news channels, including cable, including foreign news services, radio, print - someone is going to argue HIS speech is somehow being suppressed? Not credible.