Someone should let him know it's a Republic and we are going to keep it!
>>>12366133
>
>Photo shopped duh
Hmm, would really like to see what you have to back that statement up.
>I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING TO ANY OF YOUR BULLSHIT SHILLING AND ATTEMPTS TO DERAIL AND MAKE ANONS DISREGARD, ANYONE THAT HAS BEEN HERE MORE THAN A WEEK KNOW EXACTLY WHO THOSE THAT ATTACK THIS POST ARE.
>
Of course you won't, you can't back it up with sauce.
That's the move he was waiting for .. how do you introduce evidence? He now can prove complete bias on behalf of POTUS and other Americans, who were censored, shadow banned, and suspended for far less.. POTUS EO now goes into effect for them.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship May 28, 2020
Section 230 was repealed by President Trumps EO Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship signed May 28, 2020. The signing of this EO basically removes the ability to use propaganda and deceptive practices. Excerpt here:
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from ‘‘civil liability’’ and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable ‘‘on account of’’ its decision in ‘‘good faith’’ to restrict access to content that it considers to be ‘‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.’’ It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that—far from acting in ‘‘good faith’’ to remove objection-able content—instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often con-trary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
>>>12369726 (You)
>
>>Of course you won't, you can't back it up with sauce.
>
>The sauce was in the post you ignorant Jew nigger.
Gerbil/OSS/ other Alters you present to us here.. there is no sauce and image is not sauce without links. You Know Better
<---WALDO