So many of these threads boil down to the rest of the forum taking a few wailing forumers aside, explaining why they are wrong to be wailing, and then hearing the exact same wailing in response, for weeks, months, years.
1 Like
Thank you for describing exactly why we need a new Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. None of us are free until all internet forums are regulated by the government.
Lets not forget who the persecuted âConservativeâ Hero is here : Alex â â â â â â â Jones.
You might be a redneck elite if you bring up âspeechâ in the middle a thread and then claim itâs not part of the thread! 
1 Like
In this thread, Roxiebelle called someone a redneck.
2 Likes
Some people canât help but throw out personal attacks, even though itâs against the TOS. Luckily, theyâre protected by the first amendment, so they canât be banned for their violations.
If Alex Jones registered for this site, he wouldnât last more than 90 minutes. Heâs a political prisoner of an unjust society. We are on the wrong side of history.
If Alex Jones registered for this site, daily traffic would increase by 150%. I mean, the daily crazy would increase by 150%.
Trump is a democrat
you really do not have a clue,
yesterday trump is called and existential threat to our democracy.
today I pose a simple question about banning expression.
the obvious answer being that there is no mechanism for him to act.
but then the real dumbasses come out and say it pertains to the 1st amendment.
when the real issue is the 14th amendment and the civil rights act.
but liberals and you are too stupid to grasp that issue.
Im going to make a leap and guess most people on here are not followers of Alex Jones, and know he is a loon. I think weâre the interest is, there are the Info war type organizations on the left that doesnât seem to receive the ban hammer as quick as the right wing ones especially on Twitter.
There is a lot of drivel and nonsense from sites like Daily Kos and Mother Jones for instance but I donât wish them banned. I mean I think you guys are right on a private company has that right to deplatform someone. Atm though it seems to be fairly one sided.
finally a discussion
awesome
perhaps you misread the article.
The Supreme Court held âthat the [racially] restrictive agreements, standing alone, cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment.â[2] Private parties may abide by the terms of such a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, as that would be a state action. Such state action would be discriminatory so the enforcement of a racially based restrictive covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court rejected the argument that since state courts would enforce a restrictive covenant against white people, judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants would not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court noted that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees individual rights, and that equal protection of the law is not achieved by the imposition of inequalities:
When Daily Kos or Mother Jones start identifying the parents of murdered children as âactorsâ, then you can make that comparison.
I want you banned
Iâm not defending Alex Jones, I just find it odd that we live in a time weâre a Jones figure is banned on Twitter, but at the same time Louis Farrakhan is still up on Twitter with a pinned tweet that reads âUnmasking the Satanic Jewâ.
I would imagine if a right wing commenter had posted that they would be gone super fast, but as I said it doesnât seem the ban hammer comes down as quick on the left.
Both are placing restrictions on the Federal government, not private businesses. This is about as dumb as trying to say that Facebook, Twitter, etc. fall under PA laws.
Itâs interesting to note though that some of the very same people in favor of the baker being sanctioned under PA laws (another privately owned business) are against the same kind of censorship on social media.
The sun is the moon.
And even then the commerce clause was stretched to make those cases.
