DOJ And State Attorneys General Threatening Social Media Companies Over Moderation Practices Is A First Amendment Issue
from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept
Earlier this month, President Trump made it explicitly clear that he expects the Jeff Sessions' DOJ to use its power for political purposes, protecting his friends and going after his enemies:
Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018
Big story out that the FBI ignored tens of thousands of Crooked Hillary Emails, many of which are REALLY BAD. Also gave false election info. I feel sure that we will soon be getting to the bottom of all of this corruption. At some point I may have to get involved!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2018
And, while the DOJ hasn't done that concerning indictments of Trump's friends and cronies, it appears that Sessions may be moving towards it with another "enemy" in the mind of Trump. Over the last few weeks Trump has also made it clear that he (incorrectly) believes that the big internet companies are deliberately targeting conservatives, and has threatened to do something about it.
On Wednesday, just after Twitter and Facebook appeared before Congress, the DOJ released a statement saying that it was investigating whether or not actions by the big internet companies was "intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas." The full statement was short and to the point:
We listened to today's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Foreign Influence Operations' Use of Social Media Platforms closely. The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.
The competition question is one that the DOJ's antitrust division clearly has authority over, but alarms should be raised about the DOJ or state AGs arguing that these platforms are "stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms." Because while -- on its face -- that might sound like it's supporting free speech, it's actually an almost certain First Amendment violation by the DOJ and whatever state AGs are involved.
There are lots and lots of cases on the books about this, but government entities aren't supposed to be in the business of telling private businesses what content they can or cannot host. Cases such as Near v. Minnesota and Bantam Books v. Sullivan have long made it clear that governments can't be in the business of regulating the speech of private organizations -- though those are both about regulations to suppress speech.
But there are related cases on compelled speech. Most famously, perhaps, is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette which said schools' can't make kids say the Pledge of Allegiance. In that case, the court ruled:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
Forcing platforms to carry speech would clearly go against that.
Miami Herald v. Tornillo actually seems even more directly on point. It was in response to a Florida state law demanding "equal space" for political candidates, but the court ruled, pretty definitively, that as private publications, the government could not compel them to host speech they did not want to host. The ruling even discussed the issue of a lack of competition -- which Sessions' statement alludes to -- and concludes that's not an excuse for compelling speech. In CBS v. the Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court clearly noted:
The power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own political, social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers -- and hence advertisers -- to assure financial success; and, second, the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers.
In other words, if a private speech hosting platform is too one-sided, that is for the market to decide, not the government.
So, yeah, there are concerns raised here about freedom of expression... but it's by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and whichever State Attorneys General decide to participate in this clown show. Oh, and just to put a little more emphasis on why this is clearly a political move designed to suppress free speech rights? So far only Republican Attorneys General have been invited -- a point I'm sure any court would take note of.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: compelled speech, content moderation, first amendment, free speech, jeff sessions, pressure, state attorneys general
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm afraid so too.
Because 1) in fact, was Hillary / DNC / FBI which paid to have those allegations fabricated. 2) after a year, Mueller has come up with exactly zero at Trump and campaign. 3) Jeff Sessions is militantly doing NOTHING about pursuing Hillary. 4) Certain people still believe the assertions and trot them out every chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Five former Trump administration officials have either confessed or been convicted of breaking the law, so yeah - exactly zero bad stuff found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Trump’s Russia Cover-Up By the Numbers – 87+ contacts with Russia-linked operatives"
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts -with-russia-linked-operatives/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Guilt by association is not a crime. Unless you believe in what twitter thinks.
"In what amounts to a major shift in Twitter policy, the company announced on Friday that it will be monitoring user's behavior "on and off the platform" and will suspend a user's account if they affiliate with violent organizations"
https://mashable.com/2017/11/17/twitter-hate-speech-symbols-december-18/#nE0FPlnRBOqt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) you still would deny it since the people who write your paychecks to write this trash will say you need to deny it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly "breaking news"....
That quote is from an article dated November 17, 2017.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Typically the pawns are sacrificed first - no? Game aint over yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
net neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality?
There is no way you can twist the NN debate into some new fangled attack upon how platforms moderate the comment section(s) of their websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: net neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: net neutrality?
> that as private publications, the government could not compel them to host speech they did not want to host.
If an ISP can convince the government that it is a publishing platform (publishing other people's network packets), then maybe they could pull it off?
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: net neutrality?
Is there an example of an existing ISP that is "private" and is censoring their customer's content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: net neutrality?
Legally, any ISP can claim to either operate a "we don't care what you do service" (a BIAS - Broadband Internet Access Service) or a curated service. The FCC even in the proposed Title II regulations acknowledged (and conceded in lawsuits) that an ISP that forthrightly claims to operate in a curated manner would have a First Amendment defense against net neutrality regulations. They just couldn't claim to be totally open and uncensored yet violate net neutrality. This was, of course, a massive loophole, but still held true even with the Title II regs.
"Is there an example of an existing ISP that is "private" and is censoring their customer's content?"
Yes, there's a handful of unusual religious ISPs (like at least one, JNet, that operates in New York for Orthodox Jews, especially Hasidim) that censor their customers' content on their own request (or the request of their rebbe, whom they follow.)
The First Amendment issue is real, and it did indeed provide a way for ISPs to "opt out" of the net neutrality regulations. Trump and Republicans are being hypocritical, but it's wrong to dismiss the First Amendment argument regarding ISPs unless you want to be equally hypocritical (and lose in court.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net neutrality?
I thought that if the ISP willingly moderated user content then that made them responsible for the entire content and section 230 was not applicable, or something like that.
Ok, some private club type ISPs filter the content for their willing customers, no big deal so long as alternatives are available for those who do not wish to participate.
The first amendment does not provide an opt out for a government regulated utility. ISPs have been fighting that one for some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least the rules are getting clearer...
2) if you fail to remove objectionable content within 1 hour we will fine you.
3) if you remove or otherwise censor any content, we will fine you.
4) If you don't block objectionable content from being posted, we will fine you.
or, to put it simply, "Send us all your money"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least the rules are getting clearer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
It's "Threatening Social Media Companies" that The Gov't must not do.
As always, you are PRO-corporate "rights", ANTI those of "natural" persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As always, you are PRO-corporate "rights"
Screamed the AT&T/Comcast fanboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me the law that says the government can legally force a privately-owned platform to host someone else’s speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not saying the telcos or internet platforms are actually any good at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
Protecting 1st amendment rights might be illegal shortly...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/ 09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
There are various ways to interpret the Constitution, and they all involve courts. While a prosecutor might lay out some novel concept, the decision is in the courts hands, through various levels.
No matter what Trump suggest about 1st Amendment protected behavior, he cannot order it to stop. He already tried with the protesters during the inaugural but lost (almost?) every case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, protecting "natural" person's 1A rights NOW illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, protecting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about "equal time"?
Do the equal time regulations still exist?
No. Not since 1987.
If they do (the regulations) wouldn't they fall under this concept of government telling broadcasters (or platforms) what they have to carry?
No. Even if they did, it would not apply. They only applied to broadcast television using the public airwaves. That does not cover internet platforms (or cable TV, for that matter). And the only reason why it was marginally legal in the first place was because the government had given the broadcasters a license to use those airwaves, and part of the "exchange" in order to get the spectrum was the equal time part. But that doesn't apply to anyone who hasn't licensed spectrum from the government and thus has not agreed to any such deal... which the FCC stopped requiring over 30 years ago anyway.
So, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about "equal time"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUT Is Section 230 CDA to benefit The Public or corporations?
Obviously The Public by providing speech outlets. You could not find a single politician who'd say it's to benefit corporations. -- Though it's entirely possible that was and is the intent: a stealthy form of censorship.
Corporations have PR departments with large budgets to get their message out. It's only individual "natural" persons who need outlets for their views.
CDA 230 provides a new form of immunity that allows corporations to HOST content without the full liability of PUBLISHING it as still true for print outlets.
Masnick is for corporations CONTROLLING the speech and outlets of "natural" persons. He repeats it often, can't be mistaken. From last year:
"And, I think it's fairly important to state that these platforms have their own First Amendment rights, which allow them to deny service to anyone."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170825/01300738081/nazis-internet-policing-content -free-speech.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Holy shit you guys, John Smith was out_of_the_asscrack all along!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least they continue to be really easy to spot and therefor flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I said above: Show me the law that says the government can legally force a privately-owned platform to host someone else’s speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this a First Amendment case?
It seems like sort of a slippery line between claiming First Amendment protections for a platform to procure content it likes and demanding DMCA protections from liability for not being responsible for the hosted contents.
Either it is an expression of the platform rather than just its users or not.
When the platform considers itself as a mere provider (while following its legal moderation obligations according to DMCA when noticed), it would lack the standing for a First Amendment itself, wouldn't it? Its users would be the one's whose freedom of speech were concerned then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
I think you are a bit confused or perhaps being disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
What DMCA protections are given to platforms that cover content that they publish? Not talking about user comments or links to elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
However, the actual language of the law is that so long as the material does not originate from the website itself, there is no liability. In rare instances this has been used to protect websites which posted material that they had obtained offline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
lol - what kind of family dynamic is going on when the entire family goes out to eat at hooters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this a First Amendment case?
2. One shudders to imagine! That's messed up on so many levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example recently a vet was banned from twitter for daring to criticize Obama's speech about benghazi being a conspiracy theory.
Verus Twitter allowing the official Hamas group to stay up. Nevermind that group publicly advocates terrorist actions.
The real danger of course is someone criticizing Obama, not advocating terrorist attacks on people. When i see that double standard I don't believe it is a coincidence. That is a deliberate choice by whoever is in charge of deciding what is and is not worth being censored.
Saying they are not biased is silly, it doesn't mean they can be forced to regulate what they censor fairly. But let's not pretend the bias does not exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In reality it is hard, a bunch of disconnected people do the removals, hardly any time is allowed for review, and see the post from techdirt about content moderation at scale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted.
Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
God Bless America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am sure it's just a coincidence conservatives keep getting banned for what they say while the radicals on the democrat side are allowed to say whatever they want.
Your premise is incorrect. People of all kinds of political persuasions have both had content taken down and left up despite people being angry about it.
You can cherry pick examples of both type 1 and type 2 kinds of errors for whatever political viewpoint you espouse, and it says absolutely nothing about how the system actually works.
For example recently a vet was banned from twitter for daring to criticize Obama's speech about benghazi being a conspiracy theory.
As I was just saying... cherry picking examples is useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhataboutObama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Padpaw on Sep 10th, 2018 @ 11:18am
Obama is a Democrat-side radical, even? Laughable.
Please show this vet (as if that is relevant) who was kicked off whatever for simple criticism.
Bad day or what? You are usually pretty thoughtful. (Also, had not seen you in a while, glad you are still here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Padpaw on Sep 10th, 2018 @ 11:18am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah yes, well-known Democratic Party-affiliated organization (checks notes) Hamas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future of the first amendment
I am not saying it should apply, but if everything becomes privatized, then what's the point of freedom of speech if it applies to nothing of significance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It still applies to words spoken aloud, in public and in private. It still applies to writings on physical objects (e.g., self-published zines). It still applies to every form of communication and self-expression that is not, has never been, and will never be “privatized” or controlled by a corporation. The “point of freedom of speech” is to protect from government censorship all of those things in addition to the speech we put on other people’s platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future of the first amendment
There is nothing stopping you from starting up your own platform and allowing all the speech you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
How does an ISP affect one's first amendment rights?
Not can - but how does
Are any ISPs presently censoring anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future of the first amendment
Modern technology hasn't changed anything in this regard, in fact, it's created more opportunities for your speech to reach wider audiences.
Thirty years ago if you wanted to reach a wider audience your choices were either television or newspapers, both which are privately owned and had much more stringent rules about allowing anyone to use their platforms.
Freedom of speech doesn't equate to "freedom to use someone else's megaphone whenever you want". With today's technology, there are plenty of options - find a platform that aligns with your views, create your own platform (like Mike has done with Techdirt) or invent something totally new.
And, just because Facebook, Twitter & Google are at the top of the heap right now it doesn't mean they will stay there. AOL, GeoCities & MySpace were all at the top of heap at one time too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
ok, yup - that will happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Future of the first amendment
But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about online platforms, not ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future of the first amendment
Guess what. If you have a message worth anything, put it on a personal blog, and other ppl will share it on twitface. For real. No one owes you a platform, never mind an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A private company can still be a "state actor" for legal purposes, much like the phone company is, and they are a common carrier. None of this runs afoul of the First Amendment.
USENET continues to have total free speech and is completely decentralized, with companies specifically dedicated to ensuring access to the internet's only true public square. Note that the public abandoned USENET rather than relying on filters.
The public, through its conduct, has said that it does not care about internet censorship, and the ISPs thus have no reason not to continue to engage in it. I know that conservatives are censored very unfairly in many situations, but I also know that even companies which supposedly censor them (like Google) provide a platform like YouTube for all but the most extreme content. They might de-monetize certain content but that's the market speaking, not Google. They are extremely fair in how they pay people and are basically just an auction house for advertising.
The real problem is one that is not specific to speech. "Good" people can get away with bad behavior against single individduals and rely on their overall reputation to avoid scrutiny. That predates the internet and will continue on for all eternity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet is not common carrier, I thought we had this discussion.
The public abandoned usenet? So who uses it now?
"The public" does care about censorship, maybe you have an ax to grind?
Poor conservatives - no one wants to listen to their lies and bigoted ranting, go figure. It is not censoring when I do not listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"No one wants ANYONE ELSE to listen to" is the root of censorship.
Totally different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Twitter, Facebook, etc. were making it impossible for racists like Richard Spencer and misogynists like Milo Yiannopolis to say what they want outside of those platforms, you might have had a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ad hominem fallcy. I'm talking about the difference between ignoring and censoring. I have no difficulty getting my message out in enough places to worry about censorship. I am commenting on others but apparently you want to personalize your argument.
The terms "racist" and "sexist" are subjective, yet the way some try to9 define them shows a clear political bias. Reality doesn't change just because the left (or right) doesn't like it. A good example was Australia, where men were called sexist for claiming divorce courts were biased in favor of women. Women ignored this and celebrated the legal climate...until rich men started refusing to marry them due to the unreliability of prenups. Voila! The law is changed so that courts can consider them. We're seeing a similar evolution with the Marriage Strike in the US.
Whether intientional or not, you're advocating the type of doublespeak which occurred in the Soviet Union, where public "reality" was dictated by force rather than facts, but private reality guided behavior. Even now some woman just wrote an essay about how a man who asked for consent during sex didn't bother asking for consent qafter ghosting her after sex, since the law didn't require it.
Here's an academic journal which suppressed an article about why more men are high-achieving nitellectuals than women:
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/09/08/scientific-paper-male-variability-made-disappear/
the top levels of science, chess, and anything requiring objective intellect tends to be overwhelmingly male. Calling it "sexist" doesn't change that. the current climate makes it impossible to argue even with facts that don't fit the PC narrative, but that's like telling someone with cancer that they don't have a tumor. The tumor will continue to grow until its presence must be acknowledged.
#metoo has women admitting to abuse, but in the course of that they are also admitting to covering up the abuse for decades and enabling further abluse. How many women would not have been abused were it not for the first victims keeping quiet to protect their income? Fearing retaliation is an excuse, but they had no fear of other women being harmed.
How many women cover up for abusive men until their children are abused, and even then how many cover up when their children are abused by their husbands or lovers? the PC left wants to open "honest discussion" and debate and then shut it down when it takes turns they don't like. Discourse and debate do not work that way.
On a personal level, I can point this out once to soimeone, and if they respond as you have it is best simply to ignore you and let reality, not your political whims, dictate my future behavior. A smart man isn't going to throw his life away on marriage just because some feminist tells him divorce courts aren't biased.
If a fat woman tells a pretty woman that she shouldn't have been hired because the woman's husband wanted to #metoo his new intern, the wife can deny it, and inevitably will whine ten years later that hubby left her fo a new intern. Reality ignored by political pressure is just like a tumor ignored by someone indenial even when the x-rays show they clearly exist.
People can lie or deceive all they want. those who continue to engage these people are wasting time and energy and making it easier for those who do not waste that energy to thrive. In the late 1970s, men were toldthat "nice guys" like Phil Donahue were the near "alpha males." Dumb men listened, while smart men saw Reagan, Arnold, and Stallone becoming the type of men that women reallyw anted. those who ecame "simps" wound up in the friendzone, while the men who were put down for being "sexist" got laid.
If oen side needs to censor the other based on ad hominem insults, it would appear that the side that supposedly needs to be silenced is correct. Historical precedent suggests this very strongly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the man who says the above will be branded a sexist, while the man who simply uses his superior intellect to get rich in the markets and shows up at a nightclub to spend the money will have women lining up to have sex with him.
Why do rich men get laid so easily? women aer for sale.
"It's not the money, it's what earned them the money." You mean like Prince Harry or any trust fund kid earned his?
Feminism and PC don't stand up well to scrutiny. Smart men just chose arenas where being in touchwith reality is the key to success, while women gravitate to "soft science."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…elected to the office of President of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If women are for sale and rich men get laid so easily why do you have such a damn beef if you've been talking down to us all this time because you're rich? What about your self-help book? Didn't you have a method to make millions, what was that again? Oh, right - pretend you have the secret to success, then brag about it to visitors on a site you call a distraction. Wow, can't figure out why THAT didn't work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feminism and PC don't stand up well to scrutiny. Smart men just chose arenas where being in touch with reality is the key to success, while women gravitate to "soft science."
What are you wibbling on about? The only individual to ever hold TWO Nobel prizes for science is Marie Curie.
As for political correctness, I'm with you there but only because it gets used to perpetuate social divisions by presenting "protected groups" as having thin skins and a hair-trigger temper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Things he knows little about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually no, they're really not. They are sometimes used subjectively but, by definition, they are not subjective. As soon as you advocate the superiority of one race/gender above another, or the inferiority of one race/gender to another, that's racist/sexist.
No one is denying this. What people have a problem with is when someone (such as the author of the study you cited) try to say this is because of some inherent difference between men and women and everyone should just ignore it and move on. This is a load of crap.
Congratulations, you just blamed the victims, who perhaps don't really want to talk about it because, you know, IT'S A FREAKING HORRIBLE EVENT AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT DRAGGED OUT IN THE PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE. Ugh.
Then maybe he has the wrong idea about marriage to begin with and it's a good thing he isn't getting married.
And there you go being sexist again. It should never be about getting laid. You want that kind of release? You've got a hand, use it.
Picking up women just to get laid is not something to be proud of, nor should it ever be a goal. That is the definition of sexism. Yeah, those "smart men", are the reason why #metoo exists in the first place.
Historical precedent suggests you are a racist, sexist, bigoted moron. No seriously. In this post you have managed to be racist, sexist (many times over), have concluded that your opinion is the ONLY correct one, and have shown a complete lack of knowledge of history, facts, and the human race. To whit, I can ad hom insult flat earthers until the cows come home (and many people do), they will never, ever, be correct. Your logic is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have little sympathy for those who treat women the way this guy does, or those who blatantly disregard facts and reality. He, and others like him, are the reason why #metoo exists in the first place, and I'm sick and tired of it. As someone of the same gender as this guy (I assume at least), it is thoroughly disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some of those who rant about this do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do not like your comments made on your soapbox in city park.
Totally different things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask yourself whether that happens because of actual “liberal bias” or because they are more prone to saying the kind of shit that ultimately got Alex Jones banned from…well, pretty much everywhere besides InfoWars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I detest what Alex Jones says, but detest even more those who would self-appoint to a position to be able to decide which speech should be allowed. The "cure" is worse than the "disease."
Same for mental illness: what gives one person the right to didagnose another based on perfectly legal behavior? That power will inevitably be abused.
If someone breaks the law there are legal remedies. Censorship is attempting to deny freedom of speech tos omeoen who has not crossed a single legal line. That is what I take exception to. You seem to be arguing that censorship is okay if you don't like the person being silence4d.
What power should we give those who do not like you or who think you are mentally ill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter has a right to say what speech is and is not allowed on platforms owned and operated by Twitter. Twitter does not have the right to say what will be allowed on any other platform. If you take issue with this, ask yourself this: What would you do if you invited an Alex Jones fan into your house and they started spouting off Jones’s nonsense despite you not wanting to hear it?
If Twitter were censoring anyone by booting them off one platform out of numerous others, you would have a point. But as I am fond of saying, censorship is someone saying “you can’t do that anywhere” alongside threats of either violence or government intervention. Show me where Twitter has threatened either of those things to someone that was booted from Twitter. Only then will you have a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe you should.
If that was what is happening, you might have a point. It's not, therefore you don't.
Years of medical and scientific training and study?
In some cases, yes. Not universally.
To the rest of your comment I say this:
If I don't want to keep listening to you spout off a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted nonsense in my house, I have every right to throw your ass out and lock the door. That is literally no different than what has happened here, with one important difference. The "house" in question had a bunch of pre-defined rules that the person walking in agreed to abide by or be kicked out. They broke that agreement and got their ass kicked out and the door slammed in their face.
You want to dispute that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not victim-blaming to point out that a #metoo "victim" kept quiet and profited from covering up abuse, thus enabling abuse against OTHER VICTIMS.
Women use the term "short man disease" to stereotype short men. Is that bigoted? Selectively analyzing language itself can be bigoted.
As for my other point, those who deal in reality are best suited for environments where being connected to reality prevails, an d those arenas are dominated by men. Investors just take the money from those who make wrong assumptions. Affirmative-action has never checkmated anyone, nor made a scientific discovery.
The PC left relies on subjective, qualitat ive analysis which is prone to bias and error. Those who make fortunes day trading rely on better knowledge than those who rely on intuition.
Why are WOMEN fighting to have the "sexist" swimsuit competition put back in Miss America? Because it's one thing tocheer on a hashtag, and quite another to lose potential access to rich men and producers.
Your feelings are not facts. If reality is what you call sexist or racist, take that up with nature. f you say outcomes are just, like a "sexist" male not being married, then if outcomes are so valid, women and minorities lck the wealth of white men due to inferior qualifications. Your logic, not mine.
Donald Trump has shown that reality is far different than the way the left wants it. Oh and Hillary Clinton did what
you might call "victim blaming" to Monica Lewinsky. "Believe the woman" seems to mean "believe the Democrat."
the people who deal in reality have the advantage of no haing to waste energy perpetuating falsehoods. Those who want Trump out of office are the ones trying to change things, and seem to think insulting Trump's base is a good way to win them over. It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s kind of sad watching someone else’s grandpa go senile in real time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you fucking 10?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither are yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like you constantly do?
Yes, it is. Would the best course of action be to report it to the police? Probably, but when you have been traumatized by such a disgusting and horrible event, you're probably not thinking straight and no one in that situation should be forced to talk about it if they don't want to. If you think otherwise, well, then you really don't care about them. Maybe try blaming the person who actually PERFORMED the abuse and subsequently tried to COVER IT UP so that they wouldn't go to jail?
First off, never heard that term before, and I am what would be considered a short man. Secondly, no, it's not bigoted because that's not what bigoted means. Go get a dictionary before you try to "selectively analyze" the English language.
Are you serious right now? First off, there are many different environments that deal with reality, and they are not all dominated by men. Saying so is, well, sexist. Secondly, of the arenas that are dominated by men, why is that? Is it because of some inherent difference between men and women? No, that's sexist. Or is it because, historically, we have had a patriarchal society that has, in general, restricted women from participating in any of those arenas deemed "a man's domain". Which is also sexist but also happens to be the truth, and something that can be changed.
Then you really don't know what you are talking about. Try a history class.
I could say the same about you. Regardless of that, you're still wrong. As there have been prominent scientists throughout history, who have shaped our understanding of physics, who were "left of center".
Again, SEXIST. And blatantly incorrect. There are many women who can out think, logically, a good deal of men in the STEM fields. But that threatens your sexist superiority complex, doesn't it?
Not all women agree with this. Your base assertion that they are only in it for the money and rich men is, again, sexist, and incorrect. Some women enjoy it, just for itself, and take pride in their beauty. Just like some men take pride in their ability to show off how muscular they are. Or are you being a hypocrite too?
No, but my facts are facts. Meanwhile your facts are sexist, bigoted nonsense.
Maybe you should consult with nature? Because I'm pretty sure that most women are smarter, and more capable of dealing with reality than you. Hell, a blind woman showed up an entire class of computer science majors when I was in college, including myself.
No, that is not my logic. Nowhere in any part of my post did I argue that "natural outcomes are just". My comment about a rich male not getting married because he was worried he wouldn't win the divorce lawsuit had nothing to do with a just outcome. It was my way of saying he's a sexist, selfish jerk, who cares more about his money than a live human being, and as such has no business getting married because he won't care for whoever he marries more than his money. My logic is that sexist, selfish males, such as yourself, shouldn't get involved in a deeply personal relationship, if you aren't actually going to care about the other person in that relationship.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Donald Trump is the most divorced person from reality I have ever seen. And that's saying a lot considering I regularly spar with Alex Jones nutters.
Only in your mind.
No, instead we have to waste energy dealing with a bunch of nonsensical crap spouted from sexist bigots that would take us back to the dark ages if they had their way.
Hey, that's actually correct for once. We are trying to change things. Trump just wants to go back to the dark ages.
No it's not. But if you don't like being called a selfish, racist, sexist, bigoted moron, then maybe you should stop being one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know that conservatives are censored very unfairly in many situations,
As I've said many many times before, if you feel you're being discriminated against, then simply fuck off and go somewhere else for your "news" or whatever chattel you're trying to sell.
If it's good enough for an LGBTQ couple needing a cake, it should be good enough for you.
It amazes me how whiny you self-righteous little bitches are. Own a lib for real - fuck off and make your own shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I *TOLD YOU* that politics would force the moderation issue
*OF COURSE* it's the wrong way, totally unconstitutional! It's why *better ideas* are needed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I *TOLD YOU* that politics would force the moderation issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I *TOLD YOU* that politics would force the moderation issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I *TOLD YOU* that politics would force the moderation issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't the real Hate groups on the Left, the big racest lefties still on these platforms and with their FAKE News? They're on the left like these company's and so the rules really don't apply to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom of speech is a principle, not a law, that describes an individual's right to speak without fear of retribution.
Isn't it Fox News that claims to be Fair and Neutral?
Hmmm .. is it humor, sarcasm? Poe's law strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's run our world on FEELINGS, let's put diversity over eerit...it's not like it'll harm anyone. Let's have six year-olds build levees in New Oreleans to build their confidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just off the top of my head, but I would assume that it has something to do with all the best opportunities being afforded to men for a variety of reasons, including women being driven out of such fields by men who think women are not and can never be “high achievers” or “truly intellectual”. Hmm…why does that sound familiar? 🤔
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Women are raised to be subservient and they are not afforded the same level of education if any at all and there are many of both sexes that suffer much worse.
But yeah, let us use statistics that ignores all this and draw some really bad assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course language skill doesn't matter...intelligence doesn't matter
Yup. That explains a lot about you, "Jhn Smith".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
->believe's plural's apostrophe's
Voted funny for the irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, maybe they would talk about how the Ham Burglar is a bad influence for the children.
Nah - they will make fun of the employees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]