No. The original purpose of free speech is that people could criticize the government to their heart’s content–no foul. At that point, it wasn’t intended to be a free pass for prolific public profanity. For example, no profanity in newspapers and magazines. Back in the day, “Addlepated” was considered insulting. Not that I would, but I’ll bet that if I called any politician “addlepated” it would pass Moderator scrutiny with nary a blink.
Does the 1A only apply for comments about politicians? If it doesn’t apply to just politicians, would it past muster on here if it was used in reference to anyone?
So some censorship is fine. Ok.
Btw, I don’t think I can politely insult the host here without getting my post removed. Heck, I have had posts removed that were deemed as trolling. No foul words even hinted at. We can’t use religion as a weapon, which is up to the mod what that means.
1 Like
While the First Amendment was put into place over speaking out about government matters, I think people quickly realized it was simply a good policy for almost everything. At that time it was simply understood people were not profane in polite society.
1 Like
I think of it more as some modicum of self-discipline is expected when it comes to expressing oneself in public or on a public forum. Here, if one can’t discipline oneself, it goes into Moderator territory. If anyone wants to be disrespectful of Mr. Hannity, they can avail themselves of many other sites. On this forum it is expected that we treat our host with respect.
1 Like
I am not sure of the relevance of the reference to “polite society” in the context of the 1A.
I was referencing profanity in polite society (including publications). If you were thinking of slander against a private individual, the law does protect the individual.
Standing against socialism is always defined as an attempted coup by authoritarians who believe in a one party socialist state.
2 Likes
I have had posts deleted that were not in violation of TOS.
Of course a very small minority of thousands I have posted.
And the mods have allowed offensive threads to stay.
Allan
This post is stunningly uninformed.
People didn’t “quickly realize” anything. Study the history of free speech in this country, and you will see that it is a grinding battle that continues to this day.
2 Likes
Sure. Bottom line, it is censorship and they can go up another site if they want to disparage Sean Hannity. There are terms of service…just like Twitter has.
Should the govt interpret TOS for private entities? If a site wants to ban all liberal speech, can’t they make that part of their TOS? Should govt step in and stop that?
3 Likes
Exactly right, pun intended.
#45 being the fearless leader he truly is understands full well the importance of taking these election fraud concerns to the masses. DJT’s efforts to expose the sinister plot(s) that occurred only figure to intensify, especially with a lot more news coming out more recently.
For example, The Federalist is reporting how Zuckerberg and others got in on the action. Interesting read:
Shrug. Some did. But as you say, it has never been an easy process.
I know that posts that respond to a post that is in violation or to a troll are deleted. The entire conversation goes, good and bad alike.
It depends on when the site decides the will ban all liberal speech. For example, if a site opens up with the mission it will only be all things conservative, fine and dandy–a nice little club of like minds. However, if a site opens up as a political forum, gets a huge following, and then decides it will ban everything liberal, that is the time to call foul.
As for when should the government get involved? When the government sets up its own site, or needs to break up what is clearly a monopoly. Otherwise, when a communications network gets too cocky with its own power, the same people who made them a force to be reckoned with, should walk out. No calling for mama to tell big brother to stop picking on them. They can make that happen all on their own.
Foul? Ok. Does that mean users can sue to force their views into the site?
Cool, it sounds like we agree in the power of the market. Twitter is not a monopoly. Sure they are cocky, but the market can take care of them if need be. Do you support Trump suing to get back onto Twitter?
Bawahahahahaha! 
He was probably the most transparent President we had in a long time. I completely disagree.
While you have a point on his mean tweets, do you think we are better off with Communist’s in charge like we are now?
Come on man!
IF you are a blind leftist, of course their is nothing to see here…
Could not even admit he was going to get a colonoscopy.
Yep totally transparent.
Allan
1 Like
