News flash: 8chan is mostly pictures of dragons with enormous breasts eating hypnotized cars.
-
-
Show this thread
-
DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dragon+vore+car&t=ffsb&iax=images&ia=images …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Revoking legal privileges based on a platform's decision to carry, or not carry, a political viewpoint does flagrantly violate the First Amendment.
-
In the age of the decentralized, networked, free-market Stasi, the claim isn't logically false but it could use some uh thoughtful reconsideration.
-
Why didn't the same logic apply with *more* force when the Internet didn't even exist and the primary communication channels - especially television - were few and subject to explicit editorial control?
-
I think a better comparison would be to the Bell System, which never engaged in censorship because the prospect was technically absurd.
-
I'm making an a fortiari argument: that case for reexamining the First Amendment (in favor of permitting things like a fairness doctrine) ought to be stronger for systems like broadcast television. And yet I think experience and logic show it should never have been permitted.
-
The Equal-Time Rule was a thing, but I think there are far too many differences to make a mutatis mutandis argument here.
-
People never used TV to have conversations with friends, they just used speech. Closest parallel would be to CB/ham radio.
-
The point is that any censorship Twitter imposes is necessarily less effective at restricting the discourse than an editorial decision of a broadcaster when there were only four channels.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Ah, Wyden. It used to be that whenever there was a civil liberties question, he was the only one besides Rand Paul who could be relied on to be on the right side of the issue. Now this. And so soon after his border stunt.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Freedom of association?
-
What's your point?
-
I don't see your point
-
People are allowed to tend their own gardens as they see fit
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
First amendment protects against compelled speech.
-
It's the carrier vs. publisher argument. It's absurd to claim that Twitter speaks with my voice, it's just a useful pretext for the exercise of hegemonic power.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.