That was a long time ago. Got anything recent that's remotely applicable?That is not how the Senate has viewed its oversight in the past. They have the authority to judge former officials. I’m not sure why you are ignoring the precedent.
That was a long time ago. Got anything recent that's remotely applicable?That is not how the Senate has viewed its oversight in the past. They have the authority to judge former officials. I’m not sure why you are ignoring the precedent.
Obviously you don't understand what I understand.Obviously you don't understand free speech either
You apparently can't grasp the simple concept of free speech as it relates to a private entity.Obviously you don't understand what I understand.
It was a contentious vote to even declare they had the authority, and because it wasn't a presidential impeachment, there was no judge to weigh in on the issue. It wasn't ever challenged in the courts because the guy was acquitted.That was a long time ago. Got anything recent that's remotely applicable?
Curious, do you agree with a social media platform censoring people? I mean Twitter didn’t demand anyone to stop speaking.Um, you speak freely and no one stops you, what's there to understand?
Are you confusing the overall idea of free speech with the first amendment?
It’s the precedent. Impeachment has been rare in our country. It’s ok to admit you were wrong.That was a long time ago. Got anything recent that's remotely applicable?
unless they were conservativesCurious, do you agree with a social media platform censoring people? I mean Twitter didn’t demand anyone to stop speaking.
I don't agree with them censoring people.Curious, do you agree with a social media platform censoring people? I mean Twitter didn’t demand anyone to stop speaking.
Just seeing what your stance was my friend. Definitely complicated.I don't agree with them censoring people.
In general, I think they have that right.
Where I think it gets complicated is when Twitter publishes statements about people, declaring them liars "spreading misinformation". Or defaming people as hackers and ruining their business when they came to possess information through completely legal means, like the computer store owner with Hunter Biden's laptop. They may have the right to say those things but should not have blanket section 230 protection from libel and defamation lawsuits if they choose to act as a publisher.
Amazon Web Services cutting off Parler is a different story altogether, because it gets into a conversation about anti trust laws, and also what constitutes a public utility.
So, wait, what was your question?
Is this why there are so many of you guys on BC?How many times did twitter suspend accounts (always conservatives) then later say oops! it was a mistake after the damage was done?
Please God, let internet/infrastructure regulation as a public utility be what comes out of all of this! Please let the conservatives bring internet users this great gift that is the stuff of Ajit Pai's nightmares! LOLLLLLAmazon Web Services cutting off Parler is a different story altogether, because it gets into a conversation about anti trust laws, and also what constitutes a public utility.
Not wrong about it. But we'll see.It’s the precedent. Impeachment has been rare in our country. It’s ok to admit you were wrong.
That won't change what amazon did, but I 100% agree with net neutrality or similar ideas.Please God, let internet/infrastructure regulation as a public utility be what comes out of all of this! Please let the conservatives bring internet users this great gift that is the stuff of Ajit Pai's nightmares! LOLLLLL
Yep. Not exactly sure what DiDo was referring to but I like it!That won't change what amazon did, but I 100% agree with net neutrality or similar ideas.
The rules of conduct are clearly spelled out under the terms the user agreed and signed on to. The social platform company has clearly stated that if in it's opinion the user violated and or abused the rules of conduct .... it's hasta lavista babyAll media outlets against him. Facebook sensors Republicans and he still got 74 million votes
Here's where the feces could hit the fan for Trump. They round most or all the the rioters and one by one bring them into the room for questioning.Trump committed high crimes when he ordered the attack on the Capitol
What a stupid load of nonsense.Here's where the feces could hit the fan for Trump. They round most or all the the rioters and one by one bring them into the room for questioning.
Cops: "Why were you there?'
Rioter: " To stop the steal"
Cops; " Who sent you there"
Rioter " MY president Donald Trump"
Cops: " You don't say....hmmm"
Cops: ' You know you're looking at 10-20. Would you be willing to testify
under oath that it was Trump who incited you to riot. If so we'll consider a plea
bargain. If not there could additional charges that we can make stick that will add even more time. And
it will be in a federal prison, perhaps maximum security".
Rioter" Throat tightening up . Sweating like a pig. " ' I think I like your offer:.