News

There is a difference, your rights end where other's start. If your rights imposes on others then thats where the line is drawn. Nice try though.

Regarding free speech vs private entities, my cousin (who is an anti-trust lawyer) used the example from when the gay couple wanted a particular bakery to make their wedding cake but the bakery refused because they did not condone same-sex marriage because of their religion. Cousin said the gov essentially can't force the privately-owned company to do anything they don't want if it goes against their rights. Sidebar - Go to another bakery. Problem solved. If you want a particular cake, someone out there will accommodate. Free speech is way too different for that analogy, though, especially when media is the way we mostly communicate with other individuals. It's given everyone a bullhorn to the rest of the world, but there should be limitations on how much someone should be censored and it seems common sense in regards to this has been thrown out the window. Aside from a hacking attack or identity theft, the worst thing someone can do online to someone else is threaten them or harass them. People like that should be removed from platforms. However, censoring thoughts and ideas is where the line should be drawn. Even if they are bad. You can choose to ignore someone. You can choose to try to change their mind. You can choose to look the information up for yourself. If people didn't challenge others on their beliefs we would never seen someone deradicalized. Such as Megan Phelps-Roper who through communications with people outside the church, would have never left the Westboro Baptist Church. Look at the work Daryl Davis has done by getting over 200 people to leave the KKK. Censoring is not the way, open communication is better.

The whole bit about the private dinner worries me tbh. https://youtu.be/OXPTcvJ_TX4 I also find it strange how people are celebrating and praising him and he hasnt even done anything yet

Personally, i agree with the fact that a business has every right to kick someone off their platform. (Twitter) But on the same notion, some businesses tout themselves as a free open platform for everyone. You cant have it both ways. You cant delete someone because they have views you dont agree with, and then tout that you uphold free speech on your platform. There should be a process. And if we think that twitter shouldnt have to go through that process, then they need to not tout themselves as a public forum/platform

This said. Even a private company can not infringe upon your rights. Because if they knowingly deplatform you, with the intention to quiet you (ofc this would need to be followed up on and see if it is plausible the reason) being a private business doesnt (or at least shouldnt) protect you from charged accordingly. Online forums are a tricky thing in this case, knowing where lines begin and end

BREAKING https://youtu.be/HMw1zzFASOQ

In 2024 can we actually get a president that actually cares about this country like damn https://youtu.be/w2cVssb6sQM

Patriot, proud boy, whatever you wanna call it. i honestly love this country and hate that incompetent leaders are leading us to failure. 2-3 days in and dude is so worried about later issues he hasnt addressed the now ones. People predicted this months ago. And he is already proving the right, well right. Ofc he doesnt care about the troops. Classic joe "clap for me you bastards" biden.