Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Elon Musk Exposes the Hatred of Free Speech
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fishtm2001" data-source="post: 5462392" data-attributes="member: 54375"><p>1. Campaigns of all ideological stripes have direct lines into social media companies and make requests about offending content. There is nothing at all strange about what is shown in these emails. If Jeb’s kid’s grundle was posted by a Chinese troll, we surely would’ve flagged that for the company in the hopes they deleted it, and I suspect their internal correspondence on the matter would’ve been identical. This would not have been a “demand” or a “dictate” from our campaign, mind you. Companies can do what they want.</p><p></p><p>2. In this specific instance, the requests came from a campaign that has absolutely no government authority at all. At the time of the correspondence in question, Joe Biden was a private citizen running for office, while Donald Trump was the president. Taibbi acknowledges that Trump’s White House made requests that “<a href="https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752" target="_blank">were received and honored</a>” and that “<a href="https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752" target="_blank">there’s no evidence—that I’ve seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story</a>.” So if there are any First Amendment issues at play here—and I don’t believe there are since neither Musk nor Taibbi have demonstrated that the government made any mandates on Twitter—they would, in this case, only relate to the material that Trump wanted removed.</p><p></p><p>3. Why MAGA Republicans and Elon Musk are so adamant that people be able to post photos of Hunter’s johnson is something that should probably be explored with their respective preachers or psychiatrists, but it is certainly not a matter for constitutional scholars or litigators. While <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159097/characters/nm0000249" target="_blank">Mr. Lisbon</a> from the <em>Virgin Suicides</em> may derive a depraved type of happiness from publishing pictures of other people’s genitals on a private company’s public bulletin board without the approval of those pictured, the First Amendment does not bestow upon him the right to prevent the company from taking down the offending material.</p><p></p><p>To sum up what we learned: Big penis, little news, First Amendment not under threat.</p><p></p><p>Musk and Taibbi have promised more editions of the “Twitter Files” in the coming days, maybe next time they won’t come up so limp.</p><p></p><p>Tim Miller, former communications director for Jeb Bush</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fishtm2001, post: 5462392, member: 54375"] 1. Campaigns of all ideological stripes have direct lines into social media companies and make requests about offending content. There is nothing at all strange about what is shown in these emails. If Jeb’s kid’s grundle was posted by a Chinese troll, we surely would’ve flagged that for the company in the hopes they deleted it, and I suspect their internal correspondence on the matter would’ve been identical. This would not have been a “demand” or a “dictate” from our campaign, mind you. Companies can do what they want. 2. In this specific instance, the requests came from a campaign that has absolutely no government authority at all. At the time of the correspondence in question, Joe Biden was a private citizen running for office, while Donald Trump was the president. Taibbi acknowledges that Trump’s White House made requests that “[URL='https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752']were received and honored[/URL]” and that “[URL='https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752']there’s no evidence—that I’ve seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story[/URL].” So if there are any First Amendment issues at play here—and I don’t believe there are since neither Musk nor Taibbi have demonstrated that the government made any mandates on Twitter—they would, in this case, only relate to the material that Trump wanted removed. 3. Why MAGA Republicans and Elon Musk are so adamant that people be able to post photos of Hunter’s johnson is something that should probably be explored with their respective preachers or psychiatrists, but it is certainly not a matter for constitutional scholars or litigators. While [URL='https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159097/characters/nm0000249']Mr. Lisbon[/URL] from the [I]Virgin Suicides[/I] may derive a depraved type of happiness from publishing pictures of other people’s genitals on a private company’s public bulletin board without the approval of those pictured, the First Amendment does not bestow upon him the right to prevent the company from taking down the offending material. To sum up what we learned: Big penis, little news, First Amendment not under threat. Musk and Taibbi have promised more editions of the “Twitter Files” in the coming days, maybe next time they won’t come up so limp. Tim Miller, former communications director for Jeb Bush [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Elon Musk Exposes the Hatred of Free Speech
Top