>>548355

LETS DRAFT A BILL Of Rights…

Don't you think if Q had a proof he would lead us to it? Perhaps Q-team is asking US (the rogue internet anons of the world) to come together and write a "draft bill" for Internet Rights….

Even if Q does not want our bill, we can use the content of a mock bill to make meme's

The patriots assume freedom as the default condition, so it is hard to conceptualize a good argument even against companies like facebook and twatter because they are private companies.

We just gotta get in the mindset, because it is something Qteam needs of us.

No idea how to frame the argument…

>>548440

This is just another reason this is so confusing…

>>548447

We want private companies to be able to remain private. (sadly, like twitter). But it is "OUR VOICE" as a user of that service, and "OUR VOICE" should not be censored.

I think it could be stated as such?

Is it too much to expect MY VOICE (anons) be protected even when on "YOUR PRIVATE SERVER" (twitter)?

That is a valid argument, but it is OUR choice to sign on to twatter in the first place, so the argument swings worse than Mr./Ms. Jenner…

>>548544

And the 2nd ! kek

Really- If I have a right to speak on the street (assuming no liberal arts campus). and YOU don't want to hear me, then YOU are required to leave or cover your ears. (assuming no threats are flying out my mouth).

So, apply Internet: We post… If you don't like it, YOU can close the window. No censorship.

Drawback: forcing my child to stay off the internet!

>>548557

I agree, but there is nothing to push. Anons are skeptical about the good without "foresight" into the content. Which I tend to agree could just MIRROR our CONSTITUTION. (1a)

>>548594

Google is the new SNOPES!

>>548621

I need to go to work (LATE already)

BUT I did not have the PETITION URL to add to the graphic.

Please memefags add and distribute!

Godspeed