jlv wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:33 am
This is like arguing about whether we can see 5 lights when there are only 4. Anyone arguing that 1.5 miles is a 45 minute walk *wants* to believe lies. I'm almost as old as Havoc and I could cover 1.5 miles on foot in 15 minutes without getting out of breath. It's a straight walk down Pennsylvania Ave and I don't think the guys beating the unconscious cop with an American flag are going to care about honoring crossing signals.
My comments were more about how your view was simplistic, not that I believe the truth was it was 45 minute walk. If the case is to be made is that everything was hunky dory until Trump spoke on January 6th where he then incited a violent mob with his words at that moment (an actionable crime as he has now been impeached for), then you have to take in all considerations in to effect. Now if you want to make the claim those people had already been incited from months of angry tweets, then the timeline doesn't matter and we are discussing this over nothing. Really it's a stupid argument we are having, it was all wrong.
Trump's rhetoric leading up to that day was wrong and fully divisive. So were many other people in the media and politics. That doesn't excuse it, but the media/democrats can't sit there with their Pikachu faces and pretend like they didn't have their fire stick poking at the coals and Trump was over there dumping lighter fluid on the fire. That is just silly.
What I still cannot fathom is why there was so little enforcement that day on the capitol. You have literally EVERYONE in one spot for a day that many were told to believe WAS THE DAY. Not by just Trump, but the media, by the politicians, by everyone. There were internal alarms going off for days prior to the event. I think saying what happened on the 6th as entirely something only Trump planned, incited, and wanted to happen is something you would have to want to believe. In the same breath, I think claiming that Trump didn't want there to be an angry/violent response is something you would have to want to believe. He is the president, no president should have motive like that, and it is clear he was not helping deescalate leading up to the day.
jlv wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:33 am
So you want to bring back the fairness doctrine? Do you not see how this could be used against your side? Whenever someone proposes some new government power, it's best to consider how your least favorite politician will use it rather than your most favorite.
Fairness doctrine was long before I was alive, and completely different mode of delivery. I honestly had no clue what it was until I did some research this morning. That's not what I want at all. I would rather not have government step in with additional regulations, but at some point when the mega corps are effecting the commons and actively pushing the boundaries of antitrust laws... they need to be checked.
What my point is, if Twitter is going to actively be on the side of removing people like the president of the United States, or their competition Parlor, on the grounds it is in the best interest of public safety... due to incitation, lying, etc. etc. Then when they DON'T act on that for other people, particularly those who have a certain political bias to them, they should be liable. Right now, they are awarded protections that practically treat them like they are a public square, and by all means the way it is used is a public square, yet they get to control the discourse they want in that public square. That doesn't mean I feel the federal government should force Twitter, Facebook, etc. to display both sides of the argument, but the social media giants need to make a decision whether they want to be a public forum, or if they want to be publisher and only allow one side of the argument. Essentially, do you want your damn protections or not?
Fox news is a more right-wing news source. CNN is left-wing. Lets say Jack Dorsey does not like Fox anymore, and decides to permanently remove their ability to distribute information on his platform because he believes they are propogandists who incite violence (this is the road we are dangerously heading down). Yet CNN can verifiably be shown to conduct the same behavior but to a different audience, well then Fox should be able hold Twitter legally liable for their biased enforcement of their ToS. They are effectively being a publisher, not a public platform. Twitter actively suppressed a credible news story on Hunter Biden because they didn't want it to result in any bad press for Joe Biden leading up to the election; like what happened to Hillary in 2016 with the emails... you don't see a problem with that?
We are seeing a digital version of Socrates "corrupting the youth" in my opinion.
TeamHavocRacing wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 4:37 am
I love how it's "1st amendment rights!" But then...
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
And a little more research would show you that the "fighting words doctrine" has been limited from other cases due to the 1st.
Although most speech falls under the protection of the First Amendment freedom of speech, expressions that are “lewd and obscene, . . . profane, . . . libelous, and . . . insulting or ‘fighting’ words” cannot claim constitutional protection. Murphy argued that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
He added that whenever such speech fails to “contribute to the expression of ideas [or] possessed any ‘social value’ for the truth,” the right to utter that speech can be limited by government when it seeks to promote the “social interest in order and morality.”
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... -hampshire
I suppose Antifa and BLM can thank the limitations that have been applied since Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire... their little American Flag bonfires wouldn't be possible: https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/articl ... ting-words