State of the First Amendment

[yuna628 9,707]

45 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

When you made your statement, I was thinking more along the lines of people who oppose the Clintons "committing suicide".   Not the ongoing topic of PayPal blocking people based on their political leaning.  Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

Is there ever a thread that the Clintons don't enter your mind about? I thought this had been Clinton and other conspiracy theories free so far?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

7 hours ago, Ironclad43 said:

Monopolies cannot be part of capitalism, which is one of the reasons it cannot exist without State power. 

 

Considering payment providers like PayPal (who owns a majority stake in Stripe, the second largest one) will boot you off their payment system for promoting conservative ideas like border security and an end to illegal immigration, simply creating your own media outlet isn't possible, unless you also want to make your own payment processor, which requires a lot of capital and relationships with banks, who are also very hostile to conservatives according to the way they started punishing pro 2A businesses. 

 

Everyone has a right to free speech, as long as it is within the confines of the law. Banning someone you disagree with is unethical when you purport to be a platform that respects all opinions. 

PayPal only has a Monopoly on its brand.

Every store that accepts PayPal will accept regular credit card transactions. On top of the fact that you have large number of tech companies willing to send and receive money for a fee. 

 

All you need is a little knowledge in HTML and possibly a scripting language to create a website. The barrier to entry is a super low.

Its really a matter of how much time and effort you want to put into your business. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Is there ever a thread that the Clintons don't enter your mind about? I thought this had been Clinton and other conspiracy theories free so far?

You're pointing your web-finger at the wrong guy.  But I can't help it, your words pointed to a well-known malady of folks who aren't on the same side as they are.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, Satisfied said:

You're pointing your web-finger at the wrong guy.  But I can't help it, your words pointed to a well-known malady of folks who aren't on the same side as they are.

You know you cant mention Clinton's on chest . They are irrelevant now. Every post should be Trump Derangement Syndrome,  ears pinned back and nostrils flaring .

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

16 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Let's not tell them who owns paypal... and what that person does to people who disagree with their viewpoints. 

 

I think there is often a fundamental misunderstanding of what the intent of freedom of speech is and also how strange it is that those who purport to love free enterprise and capitalism (wherein there can often be market force consequences to your speech, as people act upon it either positively or negatively with their money as a form of acceptance or protest) don't actually enjoy the concept. What sort of system do they want then? Hmmm..

 

That is exactly what I as thinking. 

What magic are you using to read my mind. 

[Dashinka 24,759]

19 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Let's not tell them who owns paypal... and what that person does to people who disagree with their viewpoints. 

 

I think there is often a fundamental misunderstanding of what the intent of freedom of speech is and also how strange it is that those who purport to love free enterprise and capitalism (wherein there can often be market force consequences to your speech, as people act upon it either positively or negatively with their money as a form of acceptance or protest) don't actually enjoy the concept. What sort of system do they want then? Hmmm..

 

You are absolutely correct, the First Amendment does not apply to these companies, it like the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are limitations on the government, not private/public corporations.  I believe we had a similar debate related to the NFL sometime back.  With respect to that though I have one question, FB, Google, Twitter, Paypal can do whatever they want with respect to free speech, this I understand, then why do we put so much importance on them related to politics?  To me these are entertainment or convenience platforms and have no more importance than any other entertainment or convenience entity. 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

You are absolutely correct, the First Amendment does not apply to these companies, it like the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are limitations on the government, not private/public corporations.  I believe we had a similar debate related to the NFL sometime back.  With respect to that though I have one question, FB, Google, Twitter, Paypal can do whatever they want with respect to free speech, this I understand, then why do we put so much importance on them related to politics?  To me these are entertainment or convenience platforms and have no more importance than any other entertainment or convenience entity. 

Looks like we all found something we can agree on.😂

[Webdevman 93]

Private companies do not have anything to do with the 1st amendment. They have their own rules. If anything is ruining the 1s it is Trump kicking out certain reporters and calling anyone that criticizes him fake news.

[Dashinka 24,759]

36 minutes ago, Webdevman said:

Private companies do not have anything to do with the 1st amendment. They have their own rules. If anything is ruining the 1s it is Trump kicking out certain reporters and calling anyone that criticizes him fake news.

How is what you suggested ruining the 1st Amendment?  Are reporters or news organizations above being questioned regarding their bias?  If anyone in Congress (potentially at a president's request) proposes a bill limiting the freedom of the press, speech, religion, assembly, or redress I will be the first in line to protest them, but simply questioning the media or calling out their bias does not hinder anyone's freedom of the press rights.  You need to remember, it is freedom of the press, not freedom of access.

[yuna628 9,707]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

You are absolutely correct, the First Amendment does not apply to these companies, it like the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are limitations on the government, not private/public corporations.  I believe we had a similar debate related to the NFL sometime back.  With respect to that though I have one question, FB, Google, Twitter, Paypal can do whatever they want with respect to free speech, this I understand, then why do we put so much importance on them related to politics?  To me these are entertainment or convenience platforms and have no more importance than any other entertainment or convenience entity. 

I think some importance has been placed upon them, because of the communication platforms that they are. They operate by making money off of your information. First it was making money by marketing products to you. Then it was by marketing 'content' - content that could be anything. Some of it is rather predatory, but in the end the users do relatively agree to it. I do not agree with political entities utilizing these platforms in the selling and trading of information and never have. But nor should we applaud foreign entities from doing it either.

[Webdevman 93]

16 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I think some importance has been placed upon them, because of the communication platforms that they are. They operate by making money off of your information. First it was making money by marketing products to you. Then it was by marketing 'content' - content that could be anything. Some of it is rather predatory, but in the end the users do relatively agree to it. I do not agree with political entities utilizing these platforms in the selling and trading of information and never have. But nor should we applaud foreign entities from doing it either.

Being questioned is fine. The president or government blocking the press is fidelity a freedom of speech issue. Don't you think? 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Webdevman

[Dashinka 24,759]

2 minutes ago, Webdevman said:

Being questioned is fine. The president or government blocking the press is fidelity a freedom of speech issue. Don't you think? 

Again, freedom of the press is not freedom of access.  If the government blocks all access to all press then you might have a point, but calling out one reporter or one organization is just that, questioning their bias.  I believe we have seen some of that in the last administration as well.

 

 

[Webdevman 93]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Again, freedom of the press is not freedom of access.  If the government blocks all access to all press then you might have a point, but calling out one reporter or one organization is just that, questioning their bias.  I believe we have seen some of that in the last administration as well.

 

 

Technically you may be write though it really is cutting the line close by blocking access to reputable news agencies just because they disagree. I do not know of any examples with the last administration doing that. This is a false equivalency.

If is very obvious what is going on. Discrediting every other new agency except for the one that never says anything negative may not be against free speech but there is a reason it is being done.

I also believe that if he could, Trump would close down these agencies or fine them. I believe he tweeted this or something similar. I believe he talked about being about pulling the licence of a news agency that criticized him among other things. If anyone is a threat to the 1st amendment it would be the current president, not Youtube or Facebook. 

[Dashinka 24,759]

1 minute ago, Webdevman said:

Technically you may be write though it really is cutting the line close by blocking access to reputable news agencies just because they disagree. I do not know of any examples with the last administration doing that. This is a false equivalency.

If is very obvious what is going on. Discrediting every other new agency except for the one that never says anything negative may not be against free speech but there is a reason it is being done.

I also believe that if he could, Trump would close down these agencies or fine them. I believe he tweeted this or something similar. I believe he talked about being about pulling the licence of a news agency that criticized him among other things. If anyone is a threat to the 1st amendment it would be the current president, not Youtube or Facebook. 

Reputable?  I believe CNN is losing that status.  You don't remember Obama's war with Fox News and their WH correspondent?  Seems very similar to CNN and Acosta, but I understand, there is a double standard.

 

I really don't think Trump would close any of them down, he just likes to play with them, and he is one that defends himself.  Now of course if you believe what many of these reputable news sources are saying about Trump being a fascist or a Nazi, then maybe that fear is warranted.

[Webdevman 93]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Reputable?  I believe CNN is losing that status.  You don't remember Obama's war with Fox News and their WH correspondent?  Seems very similar to CNN and Acosta, but I understand, there is a double standard.

 

I really don't think Trump would close any of them down, he just likes to play with them, and he is one that defends himself.  Now of course if you believe what many of these reputable news sources are saying about Trump being a fascist or a Nazi, then maybe that fear is warranted.

OK, well seeing as you are from Russia it is obvious who you support and I know you will defend anything this man does. With that said there is no reason for me to argue with you.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Webdevman