• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The mysterious group that’s picking Breitbart apart, one tweet at a time

apdst said:
Probably a bunch of anti-free speech Liberals.
Click to expand...

What's with conservatives and this, "I've got free speech so you have to shut up!"
Free speech begins and ends with the words, "Congress shall make no laws...". All the rest is the free market in ideas- whatever the law allows is on the table.
Capital 'L'? Is there a Liberal party in the US now?
 
apdst said:
Criticize, sure. Shutdown, no.

Anyone who wants to shutdown free expression in an un-American piece of ****.
Click to expand...

So who are you trying to shut down today?
 
Grand Mal said:
What's with conservatives and this, "I've got free speech so you have to shut up!"
Free speech begins and ends with the words, "Congress shall make no laws...". All the rest is the free market in ideas- whatever the law allows is on the table.
Capital 'L'? Is there a Liberal party in the US now?
Click to expand...

Um...you might want to rethink that. :lamo

Look at the antifa dirtbags and remember, they aren't Conservatives.

Anyone who suppreses free speech is an un-American piece of ****.
 
countryboy said:
Lol. Lib definition of "lies". Facts which are devastating to Marxism.
Click to expand...

Isn't it weird how capitalism has been used to further Marxism? You know, capitalism. Like corporations deciding to pull their ads out of websites because consumers are threatening to not buy their products due to where they are being advertised? :lol:
 
apdst said:
Um...you might want to rethink that. :lamo

Look at the antifa dirtbags and remember, they aren't Conservatives.

Anyone who suppreses free speech is an un-American piece of ****.
Click to expand...

Deflection. Are the people who are bringing pressure to bear on advertisers entitled to that much free speech? Remember, this is a legal issue. The right to free speech is clearly outlined. If those people aren't violating the first amendment, and unless they're Congress they can't be, and if they're not breaking any laws, then by the standards that the President and the White House are held to, what they're doing is perfectly acceptable.
 
apdst said:
I don't do that. I took an oath to protect our civil rights.
Click to expand...

Civil rights? How did you happen to be swearing that oath?
 
countryboy said:
Lol. Lib definition of "lies". Facts which are devastating to Marxism.
Click to expand...

You think Marxism is a liberal thing?
Got a minute to explain that?
 
beefheart said:
Yep.....conservatives are all for the free market...until they aren't....
Click to expand...

I never group people all together like that but yes SOME are very much like that just like they want small government until they dont
 
OpportunityCost said:
1.)Sure there is.
2.) Making accusations of racism or supporting racism is slanderous without cause. Making such accusations anonymously is seeking cover to protect from accusations and suit.
3.) Breitbart can easily show both damage and negative action by Sleeping Giants. Eventually, I suspect a civil injunction will occur.
4.) You cant make damaging allegations anonymously
5.) people deserve to know who is attempting to smear or harm them and act accordingly to the law.
Click to expand...

1.) no its not factually "dangerous" lol hyperbole like that will never be taken seriously,
2.) according your you OPINION
3.) if thats true, then they should do that and their problem is solved and i would support their win. IF true :shrug:
4.) yes, you can obviously and damaging is again your opinion and subjective
5.) again you are pushing your feelings as fact

IF the court agree thats whats going on and theres evidence and facts that support such then fine. Right now thats not the case.

What makes it particularly hard in this case is the sleeping giants are nobody. They arent any official body or anything like that . . so if they send a tweet asking if a company supports somethign and they decide to pull ads youll have to show what they stated was clearly false, they new so and they did it with harmful intent. ANd the obvious question is, is the company is under some type of large influence or obligation to listen to that info? Are they not obligated to check it out themselves?

I dont know the WHOLE story but based on the OP link they have no case unless theres a lot more.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no its not factually "dangerous" lol hyperbole like that will never be taken seriously,
2.) according your you OPINION
3.) if thats true, then they should do that and their problem is solved and i would support their win. IF true :shrug:
4.) yes, you can obviously and damaging is again your opinion and subjective
5.) again you are pushing your feelings as fact

IF the court agree thats whats going on and theres evidence and facts that support such then fine. Right now thats not the case.

What makes it particularly hard in this case is the sleeping giants are nobody. They arent any official body or anything like that . . so if they send a tweet asking if a company supports somethign and they decide to pull ads youll have to show what they stated was clearly false, they new so and they did it with harmful intent. ANd the obvious question is, is the company is under some type of large influence or obligation to listen to that info? Are they not obligated to check it out themselves?

I dont know the WHOLE story but based on the OP link they have no case unless theres a lot more.
Click to expand...

Its dangerous to allow anonymous internet groups to target advertisers to shut down media outlets because they don't like their message. If you want to take that action, do it openly. To seek to anonymously damage the reputation and livelihood of another is begging for tort action.

I have no problem whatsoever with someone doing this in the open. My problem is seeking to shield themselves from the consequences of their speech. Whether you believe its legal or illegal, its not very ethical.
 
Middle_Ground said:
How are they making accusations of racism or any other ism. They simply tweet the company with the public ad saying are you aware your ads are on this site?
The race card doesn't have to be pulled for everything.
As a matter of fact there is a lot more wrong with brietbart than racism.
Click to expand...

Look who didn't read the article...
 
OpportunityCost said:
1.)Its dangerous to allow anonymous internet groups to target advertisers to shut down media outlets because they don't like their message.
2.) If you want to take that action, do it openly.
3.) To seek to anonymously damage the reputation and livelihood of another is begging for tort action.
4.) I have no problem whatsoever with someone doing this in the open. My problem is seeking to shield themselves from the consequences of their speech.
5.) Whether you believe its legal or illegal, its not very ethical.
Click to expand...

1.) no, its factually no dangerous. You havent shown how it is in any factual way at all yet. You can feel that way but that doesnt make it a fact.
2.) not necessary for any reason.
3.) again this is ALL assumption of what you feel is happening, not what has factually happened. "IF" tort was found so be it, currently not the case and going by the OP there is no sound case.
4.) again thats your feelings
5.) more feelings and opinions that dont matter to anything im asking or saying

What facts do you have that make the actions in the OP/link dangerous?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no, its factually no dangerous. You havent shown how it is in any factual way at all yet. You can feel that way but that doesnt make it a fact.
2.) not necessary for any reason.
3.) again this is ALL assumption of what you feel is happening, not what has factually happened. "IF" tort was found so be it, currently not the case and going by the OP there is no sound case.
4.) again thats your feelings
5.) more feelings and opinions that dont matter to anything im asking or saying

What facts do you have that make the actions in the OP/link dangerous?
Click to expand...

If it were happening to the NYT, I'm sure you would have a problem with it. Attacking media outlets by threatening their livelihood anonymously, particularly with anything even close to being a lie just begs for tort action. Its based in intimidation, wanting to hide your identity is seeking to lower indemnity and responsibility for speech and actions. But, hey, **** the first amendment, right?
 
apdst said:
Criticize, sure. Shutdown, no.

Anyone who wants to shutdown free expression in an un-American piece of ****.
Click to expand...

You say that, but when a right winger gets fired because he says something dumb and get some tons of blowback from customers, you guys shriek about free speech,
 
Mason66 said:
Do you ever post anything without the word "meme" in it?
Click to expand...

I take it then that you are familiar and comfortable with Breitbart Meme #467-QZ. The US is the meme capital of the world. Memes pour forth from the mouths of USians on a regular basis.
 
Personally, I think this is fantastic.

I mean, this is non-violent activism. C'mon, Right, why are you so mad? These are non-violent private individuals using their first amendment rights to lobby private organizations to stop funding bigotry. You're against bigotry, right? You support the first amendment, right? You support the right of corporations to do whatever they need to do within the law to remain profitable, right?

I can't imagine what all the hubbub is about. :lol:
 
MaggieD said:
Absolutely agree. (That's the trouble with that you thing.) Just as Imdespise the Antifa who wear masks? I despise people who don't sign their sensitivemeditorials (which are generally not printed) and I despise organizations that hide behind their anonymity to often wreak havoc.
Click to expand...

You do know that the whole "IRS targeting conservatives" thing was about anonymous donations, right?

They were screening groups, conservative AND liberal, to determine if primarily political operations were trying to obtain 501(c)(4) status instead of 527.

The only difference between the two is anonymity of donors.

As it is, lots of groups "cheat" 501(c)(4) status. This designation is not allowed to be "primarily political". So what they do is special nd 49% of donations on political activities. Then they donate the rest to another group that spends 49% of THAT money on politics then donates the rest to another group, repeating until the last little bit is eaten up by administration costs.

The whole fooraw was about how the IRS enforcement team used search engine techniques to screen for additional scrutiny. They needed some way to do it due to the avalanche of new applications they received after the Citizens United decision.

But it was never about silencing conservative groups. It was about enforcement of the law.

What you never heard in the media blitz was that nonprofits can operate for years without being formally approved.

The only risk these groups would have incurred by doing so would have been being denied 501(c)(4) status and being forced to reveal their donors.
 
camlok said:
I take it then that you are familiar and comfortable with Breitbart Meme #467-QZ. The US is the meme capital of the world. Memes pour forth from the mouths of USians on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

To most people of the world, they have independent thoughts.

Everything is a meme to you.

Do you every have an independent thought yourself?
 
OpportunityCost said:
1.)If it were happening to the NYT, I'm sure you would have a problem with it.
2.) Attacking media outlets by threatening their livelihood anonymously, particularly with anything even close to being a lie just begs for tort action.
3.) Its based in intimidation, wanting to hide your identity is seeking to lower indemnity and responsibility for speech and actions.
4.) But, hey, **** the first amendment, right?
Click to expand...

1.) wrong again, why would it matter to me who it was happening to?
2.) Again with your "feelings" . . . . "Attack", "threatening their livelihood" "lie" says what facts? Present FACTS that make all that true then theres a cae and id support it currently there is non
3.) more unsupportable "feelings" that dont matter to anything i ask
5.) well you just proved you have no clue what the first amendment is LMAO

I'll ask you again, What facts do you have that make the actions in the OP/link dangerous a true statment?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) wrong again, why would it matter to me who it was happening to?
2.) Again with your "feelings" . . . . "Attack", "threatening their livelihood" "lie" says what facts? Present FACTS that make all that true then theres a cae and id support it currently there is non
3.) more unsupportable "feelings" that dont matter to anything i ask
5.) well you just proved you have no clue what the first amendment is LMAO

I'll ask you again, What facts do you have that make the actions in the OP/link dangerous a true statment?
Click to expand...

From the OP, calling the company racist, is an easy tort. That's not a feeling, that's a fact. Making anonymous statements to harm another monetarily, you have no problem with that? Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom