• 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!

Facebook Bans Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Other Far-Right Figures

Peter King said:
No, your opinion is irrelevant, the Supreme's have started ruling and the ruling is, private business not held to the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Nonsense; entirely different issue, as stated.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Nonsense; entirely different issue, as stated.
Click to expand...

No, not as stated, you made ridiculous claims about public companies and the first amendment and at the first hurdle your arguments hit a Supreme Wall who say, nope.
 
Peter King said:
No, not as stated, you made ridiculous claims about public companies and the first amendment and at the first hurdle your arguments hit a Supreme Wall who say, nope.
Click to expand...

Wildly incorrect.

Your understanding of the issues is such that I'd suggest you read the thread to better grasp them.

HAND

:)
 
3leftsdoo said:
Wildly incorrect.

Your understanding of the issues is such that I'd suggest you read the thread to better grasp them.

HAND

:)
Click to expand...

I did read the thread, I wrote a nice chunk of this thread, I gave arguments for my claims, I gave sources. You have given us none of that but your nonsensical claims.
 
Peter King said:
I did read the thread, I wrote a nice chunk of this thread, I gave arguments for my claims, I gave sources. You have given us none of that but your nonsensical claims.
Click to expand...

Read it again.

:)
 
It's kind of beside the point that Facebook "is a private entity and they can set their own TOS"... of course they can, but they are also a primary communication network for billions of people now. They have a lot of power to filter information. It's not about whether or not they have the right to, but what is the implication of their censorship?

These social media giants have a lot of power and now they are directly using it to shape the way we perceive information.

For example... I don't like Milo, but I wouldn't call him a radical. He's just a loudmouth. So why ban him? Same with Alex Jones. These people are yahoos, but why ban them?
 
Northern Light said:
It's kind of beside the point that Facebook "is a private entity and they can set their own TOS"... of course they can, but they are also a primary communication network for billions of people now. They have a lot of power to filter information. It's not about whether or not they have the right to, but what is the implication of their censorship?

These social media giants have a lot of power and now they are directly using it to shape the way we perceive information.

For example... I don't like Milo, but I wouldn't call him a radical. He's just a loudmouth. So why ban him? Same with Alex Jones. These people are yahoos, but why ban them?
Click to expand...

Because they broke the terms of use on these platforms and thus were kicked off them.
 
Northern Light said:
It's kind of beside the point that Facebook "is a private entity and they can set their own TOS"... of course they can, but they are also a primary communication network for billions of people now. They have a lot of power to filter information. It's not about whether or not they have the right to, but what is the implication of their censorship?

These social media giants have a lot of power and now they are directly using it to shape the way we perceive information.

For example... I don't like Milo, but I wouldn't call him a radical. He's just a loudmouth. So why ban him? Same with Alex Jones. These people are yahoos, but why ban them?
Click to expand...

Excellent points.
 
Peter King said:
I don't need to. Your whole premise is nonsense. You should try and read it with an open mind.
Click to expand...

Ironic.

But keep trying - pay particular attention to the words. :)
 
3leftsdoo said:
Ironic.

But keep trying - pay particular attention to the words. :)
Click to expand...

I do, and it is ironic that you get exposed for your ridiculous claims time and time again and you think other people are the problem :lamo
 
Peter King said:
I do, and it is ironic that you get exposed for your ridiculous claims time and time again and you think other people are the problem :lamo
Click to expand...

Keep (or is it start?) trying to grasp the issue; I'm rooting for you. :)
 
3leftsdoo said:
Keep (or is it start?) trying to grasp the issue; I'm rooting for you. :)
Click to expand...

Except the fact is that I grasp the issue. As proven by actual fact, evidence and quotes relating to my position from people who are actually in the know. People who have more knowledge than you, me and most other people combined when it comes to the issue of the constitution and the first amendment.

So here goes it again, as you clearly did not grasp this on earlier tries, the first amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

the first amendment is for congress and that they do not make laws abridging freedom of speech. Facebook is not congress, twitter is not congress, they are private enterprises who have created social media websites in which people are allowed to share opinions and speak to others they agree with or others they disagree with AS LONG AS!!!!!!!!!!! they comply with the rules that this private business has created to have a pleasant and profitable environment in which people can safely and enjoyably use their product.

And I too am rooting for you, I hope that at some point you will realize that private companies are not bound by the first amendment as they are not the government and are not forced to allow morons like Alex Jones on their products after he violated the policies that regulate membership of said websites.
 
Peter King said:
Except the fact is that I grasp the issue. As proven by actual fact, evidence and quotes relating to my position from people who are actually in the know. People who have more knowledge than you, me and most other people combined when it comes to the issue of the constitution and the first amendment.

So here goes it again, as you clearly did not grasp this on earlier tries, the first amendment reads:

the first amendment is for congress and that they do not make laws abridging freedom of speech. Facebook is not congress, twitter is not congress, they are private enterprises who have created social media websites in which people are allowed to share opinions and speak to others they agree with or others they disagree with AS LONG AS!!!!!!!!!!! they comply with the rules that this private business has created to have a pleasant and profitable environment in which people can safely and enjoyably use their product.

And I too am rooting for you, I hope that at some point you will realize that private companies are not bound by the first amendment as they are not the government and are not forced to allow morons like Alex Jones on their products after he violated the policies that regulate membership of said websites.
Click to expand...

You believe you do, and this is but one obstacle to your ACTUALLY understanding it. :) Not at all. Ditto.

You're entirely in the weeds - I suggest reading the thread, and with an open mind. :)

Good to hear, but unnecessary; incorrect in this instance, as explained exhaustively here. :)
 
3leftsdoo said:
You believe you do, and this is but one obstacle to your ACTUALLY understanding it. :) Not at all. Ditto.

You're entirely in the weeds - I suggest reading the thread, and with an open mind. :)

Good to hear, but unnecessary; incorrect in this instance, as explained exhaustively here. :)
Click to expand...

Another Argument FREE response I see from the person with the most closed mind in this thread.

So I gave you facts, you respond with nothing. So please in your most argument filled response:

Why are you of the opinion that Facebook, Twitter and Youtube have to allow all freedom of speech to their members without any limitations?


We will be waiting for any valid argument you think you have.
 
Peter King said:
Another Argument FREE response I see from the person with the most closed mind in this thread.

So I gave you facts, you respond with nothing. So please in your most argument filled response:

Why are you of the opinion that Facebook, Twitter and Youtube have to allow all freedom of speech to their members without any limitations?

We will be waiting for any valid argument you think you have.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't hold it against you. :)

You provided irrelevancy, as per usual. Bizarre/irrelevant ad hom.

Bizarre straw man argument.

Read the thread.

Oh - and final O.

That's tic-tac-toe - three in a row.

:)
 
3leftsdoo said:
Yes, but I don't hold it against you. :)

You provided irrelevancy, as per usual. Bizarre/irrelevant ad hom.

Bizarre straw man argument.

Read the thread.

Oh - and final O.

That's tic-tac-toe - three in a row.

:)
Click to expand...

Absolute utter non-response, as usual no argument whatsoever. Not surprising from a man with no argument.

Give and argument, a believable one other than your absolute nothing response.

And tic tac toe? Nope, nonsense, bull crap and dribble.

Not three in a row but dozens in a row of nothing responses from someone clearly clueless about this issue.
 
Peter King said:
Absolute utter non-response, as usual no argument whatsoever. Not surprising from a man with no argument.

Give and argument, a believable one other than your absolute nothing response.

And tic tac toe? Nope, nonsense, bull crap and dribble.

Not three in a row but dozens in a row of nothing responses from someone clearly clueless about this issue.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't hold it against you. Ditto.

Read the thread. (Have I mentioned this as a solution before...?)

Don't be a sore TTT loser! :) I forgive you.

I have faith you can do better. :)
 
3leftsdoo said:
As I said, I don't hold it against you. Ditto.

Read the thread. (Have I mentioned this as a solution before...?)

Don't be a sore TTT loser! :) I forgive you.

I have faith you can do better. :)
Click to expand...

Here's some food for thought, 3LD:

Can I, as a lone citizen, do anything that's legal, but still unconstitutional? Can you?

Can the owner of the local bakery do anything unconstitutional (but legal) in her business? How about the board of a small corporation? Or the board of Facebook?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Here's some food for thought, 3LD:

Can I, as a lone citizen, do anything that's legal, but still unconstitutional? Can you?

Can the owner of the local bakery do anything unconstitutional (but legal) in her business? How about the board of a small corporation? Or the board of Facebook?
Click to expand...

You may be posting in the wrong thread...?
 
3leftsdoo said:
As I said, I don't hold it against you. Ditto.

Read the thread. (Have I mentioned this as a solution before...?)

Don't be a sore TTT loser! :) I forgive you.

I have faith you can do better. :)
Click to expand...

You have nothing to hold against me. We have loads to hold against you.

I am not re-reading the nonsense coming from you and your supporters because it is nonsese.

Don't be a sore loser :lamo If you weren't serious you would be funny, now you are just petty and ridiculous.

And I have no faith you will ever answer a questions with a substantive response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom