@Admin it certainly would be better if they reported. But there is enough reposts and copies of posts to indicate fire amongst the smoke. That’s why I voted “something else”. Though within their rights as “ Private” companies, they do provide public communication to some extent. Needs to be run through FCA

My position has been crystal-clear for decades, and/or they could show up & ask. At the age of 12 i read 2 things: the quote about "them" coming for everybody while doing nothing, until there was no one to speak for me. And the one about the "triumph of evil".
I have endeavored always to live as if i would rise & speak out if even slightly indicated.

I look forward to the back swing.

I don't know why I'm bothering, but this site getting shut down by "Big Tech" would not be an infringement of my First Amendment right to free speech.

@JeffMurray you say that now.

@CourtJester Are you joking? You do know that companies can't infringe on your First Amendment rights, right?

@JeffMurray try logging onto Parler.

@CourtJester Wow you're slow.

@JeffMurray but it’s factual

@CourtJester It doesn't matter if you can or can't log on to Parler. If doesn't matter if the "BigTech" companies all stopped hosting. None of that can ever infringe on your First Amendment rights. People and businesses can't infringe on your First Amendment rights, only the government can.

@JeffMurray well; if an open platform is created and built to a global platform of speech, then yes. It can infringe on free speech. I would say the same if they were shutting down democrats.

It’s their own company. At the end of they day, they have shown their feathers and they can do what they want. They simply opened the box for other businesses to do the same thing against the other side. I actually disagree with that on either side.

This place is my only social media presence simply because they don’t squash differing views. And my views are quite different from the social norm here. I like the push back. I don’t always put much time into my replies because Jim Beam occasionally hangs out in my free time , but I haven’t seen a lot of censorship here. It’s almost like free speech.

If people can speak, you get to see who they are and others get to make up their own minds. That’s not such a bad thing.

@CourtJester Dude, you still don't get it. It's actually fucking amazing to me that people on your side who figuratively fuck the American flag with how they claim to be so patriotic don't even know how the FIRST fucking amendment to the Constitution works. SMH

@JeffMurray I’m amazed that people like you can’t comprehend the term “free speech”. It’s okay that neither of us likes what the other says. It’s free.

@JeffMurray what exactly Is your definition of free speech? What is your definition in less than 50 words? Just a cut and dry definition.

@CourtJester The Constitution does it in 45, plus includes all the others, too...

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

PEOPLE and BUSINESSES can't infringe on your freedom of speech. It is only guaranteed to you that CONGRESS won't [while The Supreme Court obviously can set legal precedent that limits it e.g. "To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.&rdquo.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)".]

@JeffMurray well the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” was from oliver wendell holmes in response to a group of yeddish speaking fellows that spoke against the First World War. They spent the rest of their life in prison because of Holmes’ opinion. That’s a bullshit opinion on a good day unless your goal is to shut down opinions that are not in line with your own.

Fire. Fire. Fire.

Even Christopher Hitchens said that much. Do better.

@CourtJester So you think people should be allowed to say whatever, wherever, whenever, however they want with no consequences?

@JeffMurray 100% Absolutely. Christians can call us retards and we can say the same of them if we so choose. If words hurt your feelings then you have issues that need dealt with that are much deeper than the words them selves.

If you are a fan of censorship, you can go to Iran or China. They would gladly accept your railing against differing opinions.

@JeffMurray why are you against people speaking freely?

@CourtJester So people should be allowed to print whatever they want in newspapers or magazines? Advertisers can lie as much as they want about the products they're selling? Investors and banks can show you false earnings reports to get you to hand over your money to them? Jeff Bezos can publicly offer $1 billion dollars to anyone who rapes CourtJester's mother and posts the video on an advertising van that drives by your house and work all day and night? Employees can publish trade secrets of businesses?

@JeffMurray Well... business have laws in place to protect individuals against deceptive practices. But there is a big difference between businesses advertising and personal opinions. Logical people can see the difference.
That’s just my opinion, but if you don’t understand the difference between Ford motor company and myself, then again; there are some deeper issues that need to be addressed.

@JeffMurray Remember that people aren’t really upset by free speech at all. Weak people are simply scared of it.

@CourtJester
First of all, your side said there isn't a difference between people and corporations in a little inconsequential ruling called Citizens United v FEC.
Secondly, a business isn't taking out the ad, an actual person does it, so why can't that actual person that wants to say that actual thing claim that it's their right to say it? See how your no rules thing gets kinda stupid?
Third, even if you want to claim a "business" can't deceive and that that somehow doesn't contradict your claim that 100% absolutely people should be allowed to say whatever, wherever, whenever, however they want with no consequences, does that mean an individual can deceive people all they want with impunity?
Finally, you didn't address any of my "non-business-related" points. Should billionaires be allowed to put out statements that encourage people to kidnap your mother and get a video of a horse fucking her in the ass by offering a billion dollars to the first person that posts a video of horse ass rape on the new website that champions free speech: Parler2WeAreAllAboutHorseFucking.com?

So what'll it be? Should people "100% Absolutely" be able to say whatever they want without punishment? Or do you agree that there should be some limits to free speech?

@Admin A chronic problem more evident on the Left than Right is the penchant for making a declaration and really believing it to be so merely by personal affirmation; no facts necessary and any offering of factual contradictions ignored. Political fanaticism and theological fundamentalism differ little in that regard.

@Silver1wun "A chronic problem more evident on the Left than Right is the penchant for making a declaration and really believing it to be so merely by personal affirmation; no facts necessary and any offering of factual contradictions ignored." --See what you're doing there?

@Gareth stating an opinion based on my observations. It could be inaccurate, but it's based on over 60 years of paying attention to current events and learning real history; having had many orientations on both ends of the political spectrum.