Zeebabar

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Actually not. Freedom of speech applies to government, not private companies, media or otherwise.


Right. The clicks are more for a laugh along the lines, "how can these guys be so fucking stupid after playing for so many years," In MWP;s it's 35 years and he still doesn't understand the game!

There are also bots "clicking" on forum posts. For search engines, it's to index the posts. For other bots, it could be for potentially nefarious purposes such as looking to harvest email addresses. That's why that misanthropic, legend-in-his-own-mind, bipolar sociopath on ZZ has lots of views when in reality only MWP and Bosox read his nonsensical vitriol.

Nope, sorry you are wrong 21forme.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc have always claimed to be only "pipelines" for anyone to say what they want to...as long as they abide by certain "moral standards".

But they have recently changed their stance.
They now edit and delete people's posts...if "they" do not agree with it.
That makes them "publishers", "editors", and "the press".

 

[JamesonDetroit]

The Constitution makes clear distinctions between those who are "the press" and anyone else.

In which article does the Constitution draw a clear distinction between those who are "the press" and anyone else?

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

In which article does the Constitution draw a clear distinction between those who are "the press" and anyone else?

Is your question a serious one?

 

[JamesonDetroit]

It is. I pulled out my copy of the Constitution and I'm failing to locate anywhere the press is drawn as distinct from anyone else. As far as I can tell, it is mentioned in one place only: the first amendment, where it is clearly lumped as having the same freedoms protected as everyone else, not marked as distinct from anyone. If I'm missing something though, I want to know; so it's definitely a sincere question. Which article(s) were you referring to?

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

It is. I pulled out my copy of the Constitution and I'm failing to locate anywhere the press is drawn as distinct from anyone else. As far as I can tell, it is mentioned in one place only: the first amendment, where it is clearly lumped as having the same freedoms protected as everyone else, not marked as distinct from anyone. If I'm missing something though, I want to know; so it's definitely a sincere question. Which article(s) were you referring to?

Wow I'm happy to have an intelligent response here.
You seem to be taking the discussion where you want it to go. And that is fine.
Please elaborate as to how you disagree with my full post, instead of only part of it.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc hide behind free speech...but with their new policies, they are no longer protected.

 

[JamesonDetroit]

I didn't say I disagreed with your whole post; not trying to be argumentative.

But the last sentence, regarding the Constitution, seems to be the most important piece on which the rest of the post depends. If the Constitution makes no distinction between "the press" and "anyone else" (say, other corporations), then the classifications you're suggesting the companies are finding themselves in aren't necessarily meaningful, legally-speaking, to begin with.

Maybe there are extra-constitutional laws that do start to draw distinctions you're making; I'm far from a legal expert, and I'd love to learn about them if there are. I'm just an armchair Constitution-reader who isn't seeing what you are, and want to confirm if I'm missing anything.

 

[21forme]

Nope, sorry you are wrong 21forme.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc have always claimed to be only "pipelines" for anyone to say what they want to...as long as they abide by certain "moral standards".

Nope back at ya! It has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's simply a legal strategy to avoid liability for what's posted. Similarly, ebay pulls the "we're just a venue" to avoid liability for sellers selling counterfeit goods.

 

[beating vegas]

Actually not. Freedom of speech applies to government, not private companies, media or otherwise.


Right. The clicks are more for a laugh along the lines, "how can these guys be so fucking stupid after playing for so many years," In MWP;s it's 35 years and he still doesn't understand the game!

There are also bots "clicking" on forum posts. For search engines, it's to index the posts. For other bots, it could be for potentially nefarious purposes such as looking to harvest email addresses. That's why that misanthropic, legend-in-his-own-mind, bipolar sociopath on ZZ has lots of views when in reality only MWP and Bosox read his nonsensical vitriol.

Freedom of speech is in certain situations is not allowed in government.
Here is an example of when freedom of speech is not allowed.
A judge isn’t allowed to give his opinion of a trial in progress. The judge can’t say the defended is guilty.

Also look at the Rodger Stone case. The judge put a gag order on Roger Stone not allowing himself to discuess his case.

So there are times when you don’t have freedom of speech.

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

I didn't say I disagreed with your whole post; not trying to be argumentative.

But the last sentence, regarding the Constitution, seems to be the most important piece on which the rest of the post depends. If the Constitution makes no distinction between "the press" and "anyone else" (say, other corporations), then the classifications you're suggesting the companies are finding themselves in aren't necessarily meaningful, legally-speaking, to begin with.

Maybe there are extra-constitutional laws that do start to draw distinctions you're making; I'm far from a legal expert, and I'd love to learn about them if there are. I'm just an armchair Constitution-reader who isn't seeing what you are, and want to confirm if I'm missing anything.

Yeah you are right about my last line there JamesonDetroit...I have removed that. It was late after some drinks when we exchanged...I was not ready to discuss Constitutional Law or for your smart responses!! Lol. I appreciate your thoughts, cheers brother.

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Nope back at ya! It has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's simply a legal strategy to avoid liability for what's posted. Similarly, ebay pulls the "we're just a venue" to avoid liability for sellers selling counterfeit goods.

You are right, no doubt. I had a few drinks, and was not ready for a real Constitutional Law discussion lol. I confused my response there...but I know that we agree alot.
There is a reckoning coming for these social media companies legally. Cheers brother, have a good weekend.

 

[JamesonDetroit]

Yeah you are right about my last line there JamesonDetroit...I have removed that. It was late after some drinks when we exchanged...I was not ready to discuss Constitutional Law or for your smart responses!! Lol. I appreciate your thoughts, cheers brother.

Hehe, all good man; sometimes having a few drinks is the only way to make it through quarantine with any sanity left by the end of this. I always enjoy a good conversation.

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Hehe, all good man; sometimes having a few drinks is the only way to make it through quarantine with any sanity left by the end of this. I always enjoy a good conversation.

I do concur, and enjoy it as well. Cheers brother, and to these crazy times improving soon.

 

[Cookingwithcards]

Ah, the good old days.


I presume you are referring to me. I rarely am the first to neg your picture posts. You must have another fan or two. Speaking of two, there are plenty of posts you make that are already negged by the time I see them. I often add my neg, just so you don't think the single neg came from me BTW, at BJTF, it's not whether a post is liked or disliked; it's whether or not the post is HELPFUL. There's nothing helpful about your endless supply of snow drift pictures and posts. You've probably never made a helpful post because you don't understand BJ. You rarely play and you are fixated on short-term results, just like the ploppies.


"Zee and I" Are there schools in Podunk? A teacher never learned you well English?[/QUOTE

Oh Damn!