RIP Charlie Kirk

[Archer86]

Ask yourself if it had been a Democratic politician that had been murdered, would the Vice President be encouraging the public to call the employers of people making light of the situation? Do you think the VP should be encouraging the public to pressure retribution?

Making light of the situation vs celebrating someone being killed....those are 2 very different situations...some people have been Very disgusting with comments and the fact the some are just dismissing it like you just did above is bad as well. i would say you are having a hard time seeing it both ways.......

People have a difficult time seeing it both ways. You make your one-sided argument and then say, "I don't want to go down an argument rabbit hole." Don't challenge my preconceived notions! LOL

 

[elkduds]

Making light of the situation vs celebrating someone being killed....those are 2 very different situations...some people have been Very disgusting with comments and the fact the some are just dismissing it like you just did above is bad as well. i would say you are having a hard time seeing it both ways.......

How is @Oak 's valid comparison making light of this debacle, exactly?

 

[Elky Welky]

Social Media - whether i like it or not -has become the public town square. While they are private entities - each user has their own page and is a unique publisher, the media is simply providing the platform. In my view - it would be akin to your phone company restricting your calls/texts or your internet provider restricting you from creating your own webaite.

That's why I called them quasi-public squares. That said, they are run and managed as private companies with shareholders and profit motives. They are not government owned nor regulated (phone companies and ISPs often are). If and until the law changes, such platforms are entitled to regulate how they would like, suppress what they want, ignore fact checks, push garbage, etc. Facebook and X in particular have chosen not to regulate content at all any more, which is why they are now pushing the worst of the worst to the forefront. Clicks make the money.

The text of the 1st amendment is very clear though in that regulating speech only applies to the government, specifically Congress. The test SCOTUS therefore has to apply if any such law is enacted is called "Strict Scrutiny" (the government must show that its actions were “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest,” and that they were the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.). For example, someone can't make a bomb threat in an airport, that is not protected speech.

"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."

 

[Jorgy]

so am I the only one who went down a rabbit hole finding out wtf a groyper is, or do you guys just do normal stuff?

 

[Archer86]

How is @Oak 's valid comparison making light of this debacle, exactly?

Maybe i mis interpretation his comments but it sure looks like he is claiming the people being fired for there comments on social media are just making light of the situation? When alot are celebrating the assassination of someone they didn't agree with.

 

[elkduds]

That's why I called them quasi-public squares. That said, they are run and managed as private companies with shareholders and profit motives. They are not government owned nor regulated (phone companies and ISPs often are). If and until the law changes, such platforms are entitled to regulate how they would like, suppress what they want, ignore fact checks, push garbage, etc. Facebook and X in particular have chosen not to regulate content at all any more, which is why they are now pushing the worst of the worst to the forefront. Clicks make the money.

The text of the 1st amendment is very clear though in that regulating speech only applies to the government, specifically Congress. The test SCOTUS therefore has to apply if any such law is enacted is called "Strict Scrutiny" (the government must show that its actions were “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest,” and that they were the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.). For example, someone can't make a bomb threat in an airport, that is not protected speech.

"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."

47, working every day to demonstrate that the Executive Branch is not mentioned in the 1st Amendment.

 

[Irrelevant]

Charlie Kirk's death wasn't shocking, if you had been paying attention. — The Hill

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a symptom of the age of political violence that has been prevalent in the U.S. for some time now, with politicians, pundits, and influencers all contributing to the rising temperature.

apple.news

That's one of the better articles I've read. Thanks for sharing.

"We have been living in an age of political violence for some time now, and politicians, pundits, social media companies, and influencers have been telling us that the violence has been one sided, and it’s not the side you agree with."

 

[Oak]

Making light of the situation vs celebrating someone being killed....those are 2 very different situations...

Yes, very different, Mr. Moral High Ground.

Very disgusting with comments and the fact the some are just dismissing it like you just did above is bad as well. i would say you are having a hard time seeing it both ways.......

I didn't dismiss anything. I simply said that I don't think the government should be stifling free speech. I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were free speech absolutists. What happened to that? Now we have bills to ban flag burning, policies to pull visas for saying the wrong thing about a conflict on the other side of the world, and bills to pull the passports of Americans over allegations (which I am aware has been pulled in the last hour or two). I'm not saying I support any of those things. I'm saying that they are protected under the constitution, just like our right to bear arms is protected, which many don't agree with and want to take away.

Maybe i mis interpretation his comments but it sure looks like he is claiming the people being fired for there comments on social media are just making light of the situation? When alot are celebrating the assassination of someone they didn't agree with.

I'm saying that the federal government should not be stifling free speech. I'm not saying people should not face consequences for their actions in the private sector.

 

[Irrelevant]

so am I the only one who went down a rabbit hole finding out wtf a groyper is, or do you guys just do normal stuff?

#wordoftheday

 

[Forkyfinder]

That's why I called them quasi-public squares. That said, they are run and managed as private companies with shareholders and profit motives. They are not government owned nor regulated (phone companies and ISPs often are). If and until the law changes, such platforms are entitled to regulate how they would like, suppress what they want, ignore fact checks, push garbage, etc. Facebook and X in particular have chosen not to regulate content at all any more, which is why they are now pushing the worst of the worst to the forefront. Clicks make the money.

The text of the 1st amendment is very clear though in that regulating speech only applies to the government, specifically Congress. The test SCOTUS therefore has to apply if any such law is enacted is called "Strict Scrutiny" (the government must show that its actions were “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest,” and that they were the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.). For example, someone can't make a bomb threat in an airport, that is not protected speech.

"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."

Jake - on the text alone - would you let the executive branch censor speech under some quasi legal intrepretation of an existing law? Or would you expect them to get sued, and rightfully stop restricting speech in the courts? I am liking your originalism in legal understanding .

My larger point was, again, that social media platforms are a public square. I could be convinced they shouldnt be - yet they benefit from the same kind of rights your phone/telephone provider (platform) and engage in the same thing your local newspaper does (edit). As long as any kind of section 230 protection remains, they should be platforms and have no restrictions on edits that doesnt break a law. If they want to be an editor - they should bear the full legal responsibility of it. They get it both ways right now, and i think opened up to the idea that they are again a "platform" to face the rath of perception and political landscape change. Too bad really.

Platform or Publisher? Social Media Can't Be Both

Tech should not be able to receive Section 230 immunity—the kind of immunity reserved for a mere platform—when it curates based on race, religion, or politic...

www.newsweek.com

 

[406dn]

There is definitely poor rhetoric on both sides all the time im not disputing that. Something i found very telling in the aftermath of this tragedy tho is ask yourself how many buildings or cars were burned, how many places were looted, how many storefront windows were smashed, how many police officers were spit on for not doing their jobs, how many people were dragged in the street for possibly looking like the perpetrator? How the "teams" conduct themselves in the aftermath matters. Ask yourself what would the streets in major cities look like if this was Al Sharpton instead of Charlie Kirk. My opinion is there would of been major rioting. Not going down an argument rabbit hole with anyone about it just something to think about and take into consideration.

We have a recent example of how one side took an election loss. While no building was burned, it got a thorough trashing. Is there any doubt what would have happened to Pence or Pelosi, if they were actually captured by the rioters.

The worst act of domestic terrorism in recent decades was by a guy who thought mixing diesel and ammonium nitrate together and touching it off next to a federal building was justified.

So, just stop that is only a one sided problem.

 

[Frenchy]

so am I the only one who went down a rabbit hole finding out wtf a groyper is, or do you guys just do normal stuff?

Add Icel, Black Pill, Femboy & Transmaxing to the list. This stuff is getting WILD!

 

[cgasner1]

@Lostinthewoods you ever read of mice and men? Think it’s time

 

[Jorgy]

Add Icel, Black Pill, Femboy & Transmaxing to the list. This stuff is getting WILD!

Thank you, I was starting to think maybe it was just me

 

[Irrelevant]

@Lostinthewoods you ever read of mice and men? Think it’s time

I started it, and your comment got me thinking that I don't think I ever finished it

 

[cgasner1]

I started it, and your comment got me thinking that I don't think I ever finished it

George puts the slow guy down. In this instance @Lostinthewoods would be George

 

[WildWill]

I started it, and your comment got me thinking that I don't think I ever finished it

Spoiler alert! Don't look at the rabbit Lenny.

 

[cgasner1]

 

[Lostinthewoods]

@Lostinthewoods you ever read of mice and men? Think it’s time

I’ve mentioned it before; idol hands causes mischief.

A lot of these people remind me of people I’ve deployed with. When we didn’t have anything to do, people got “creative” and all hell would break loose.

We had some CV-22 crew chiefs who got bored one day in Africa and decided to water board eachother. Typical crew chiefs (not always thinking things through) they were unpleasantly surprised when they all developed eye infections from less than desirable sludge water.



HT has a metric I made up in my little time here. Typical threads that are 12 pages or less typical maintain control. After 12, every 3 additional pages significantly increase the rate for locking.


I think 96% of what happened with this situation has been said. We have now transitioned to dangerous territory.

 

[Archer86]

View attachment 385997

Yes, very different, Mr. Moral High Ground.


I didn't dismiss anything. I simply said that I don't think the government should be stifling free speech. I'm old enough to remember when conservatives were free speech absolutists. What happened to that? Now we have bills to ban flag burning, policies to pull visas for saying the wrong thing about a conflict on the other side of the world, and bills to pull the passports of Americans over allegations (which I am aware has been pulled in the last hour or two). I'm not saying I support any of those things. I'm saying that they are protected under the constitution, just like our right to bear arms is protected, which many don't agree with and want to take away.


I'm saying that the federal government should not be stifling free speech. I'm not saying people should not face consequences for their actions in the private sector.

Oak said:
Ask yourself if it had been a Democratic politician that had been murdered, would the Vice President be encouraging the public to call the employers of people making light of the situation? Do you think the VP should be encouraging the public to pressure retribution?

very different statements.......