Replies to post #379082 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[blackhawks]

….but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.”

All that they did was echo the amended Holmes opinion which defined banned speech as emboldened below. They had every right to throw that treasonous, riot inciting, prick off their platforms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic.

The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]

[fuagf]

Da Kine 17, So i suggest you could thank someone for showing you were wrong and you simply
ignore that and deflect into something which has nothing at all to do with my post to you.

It's cute how you slide from saying a company should should have attributes as being "impartial, open channels of communication" to saying they have no right to say fuck you to constant and repetitious misinformation, misrepresentation and lies.

If the falsity alone in what you say all should sanction, or tolerate, is not in itself enough to say no to it then the danger much of it puts other people in should be enough to say, enough is enough.

As well as being dishonest you are an ingrate. Not surprised. Trump is all of it too.

[sortagreen]

they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

Here's your confusion, moron.

Calling for a violent overthrow of the government fits pretty fucking squarely within that box.