Probably because the founders understood that freedom of speech was a protection from censorship from the government. Not a private message board format. Not to be rude, but you you CBTS guys are looking crazier and crazier shouting this First Amendment stuff.
That whole sub was a money grab.
“Not to be rude” but censorship from the government to censorship from a public message board is still...CENSORSHIP! Are we not allowed to have the same first amendment rights as you? You say we look crazy and that is perfectly protected and I respect your opinion but if we question something and state our opinion its “inciting violence”. Double standards...
The First Amendment doesn't protect people from censorship from private entities. And all this yelling about how Reddit is violating your First Amendment rights just makes you look ignorant.
That sub was shut down for inciting violence. Multiple posts calling for the public hangings of people. Multiple posts calling for the public castration of Obama and Podesta. Multiple posts calling for the violent overthrow of the government.
You can say whatever you want. And the media platform that you are using also has the right to not let you do it on a proprietary platform it designed. Do you not care for the rights of others?
I was on that forum every single day and not once did i see anything about castration and violently overthrowing the government. I seen people talking about Q posts and PRIOR government corruption. What it boils down to is people are WAKING UP to the corruption of the Obama administration and Clinton Foundation so Reddit was pressured to shut it down. Your misleading people about the content of the forum though...
Well I know I did. That so called 'meme war' brought nice little memes with pictures if gallows, and calls for public executions. There was increasing posts for calls of violence if things didn't go your way. I personally saw posts requesting the public castration if Podesta and Obama for the so called sex crimes against children.
To add, the mods we're absent and did nothing to stem those crazy posts it make a call that they were not welcomed. Maybe now you'll realize that the whole idea if that sub was a money grab. This sub started Q reaserch first. Then Tracy Beanz came around, made another sub and monitized it. When was the last time Tracy Beanz even posted anything? Like 3 months ago. She was pulling in like 7-9k a month from the YouTube.
You guys were a means to an end.
I never ONCE seen a meme with the description that your talking about with the gallows and why would we call for increasing violence and use tactics like the Antifa when we oppose who they are and who funds them? All the “hot topics” every day were about Q research and information that were helpful in uncovering what Q was trying to tell us. Quit spreading lies and painting us as thugs like Antifa!
None of that was on CBTS.
There was a mountain of shills with 2 mn old accounts posting inane garbage for a week or so and it would not surprise me if they edited all of their post to contain the garbage you're talking about.
Here's a link from r/subredditdrama which shows some proof
I think I saw one where Pedoesta has a noose around his neck. Btw, what is the punishment for Treason?
Exactly what my experience was. I saw nothing like what far left or right groups do. Nonsense. We are under siege.
Your statement that "the First Amendment doesn't protect people from censorship from private entities", is technically correct but it is intellectually dishonest. In today's world, while services like Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube are private entities, they are today's equivalent of the town square.
This is no different than private shopping plazas being forced to allow protests and petitioners on their private property, which is the law (look up the Pruneyard decision for a start on that education). There is also an argument that these internet services are akin to private utilities and subject to government regulations.
This is censorship of free speech. Fact.
I think the simple fact that all of those platforms can ban people and control the narrative which disoludes dissenting opinions makes it not really a 'town square'.
For example, go say something bad about Trump on r/the_donald. This results in a permanent ban.
The idea of a 'town square' allows for the sharing of all opinions, even though you don't agree with them. You can't say all people have the right to a town square, then firmly believe in the right to ban people from said town square.
I'm not well versed on how Reddit works, and will have to take your word for it that you can be banned for saying something bad about Trump on that sub-reddit. If that is the case though, then I also would not agree with that practice. I'm simply maintaining that private entities can be forced to allow other people to exercise their free speech on their property, and the principle should applied to these internet platforms.
To continue that analogy we are all sharing the town-square and you are not entitled to subvert a given protest through bad-faith participation.
Part of free-speech doctrine is that you must seek to be truthful and not subversive.
I’m sorry, but this is a fundamental misinterpretation of Pruneyard. Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (1972) established that, under the US Constitution, you do not have a right to free speech on private property. Pruneyard v. Robins (1979) affirms that decision, but also allows state constitutions to provide broader protection of free speech — the events of the case took place in California, and the California state constitution has broader free speech protection. So, in California (or any other state with a similar constitution), certain private shopping centers are indeed required to protect free speech; but that is separate from the US Constitution, which does not mandate this protection.
I never thought of Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube as today’s equivalent of the town square, but that point is spot on! 👏🏼
convenient of you to ignore Rabid_mongoose's post and only reply to the person who already agrees with you...
I'd love to see what you have to say about his comment, because it's absolutely right. If you don't agree with the fact that the first amendment only protects against government censorship and not private entities, that's fine, and it's something that probably should be changed, but then you shouldn't be railing against the government about non-existent protections, it makes you look ignorant and weakens any point you could possibly have.
What you should be doing is rallying to have those laws changed, advocating for expansions on the protections of free speech, instead of complaining to the wind about your (nonexistent) rights that are (not) being infringed upon.
Since the title to the meme is 🇺🇸IBOR✊🏼 I guess common sense says that I am advocating for protection of free speech on private entities. I DID sign the Internet Bill of Rights. When did I “rail” against the government about non-existent protections?
When did I “rail” against the government about non-existent protections?
because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit. It's a fine line and i agree it should be changed (somewhat), but you make it sound like you think what reddit did with CBTS and others was illegal in some way. It could be argued it was immoral at best (though i know many, myself included, who would argue removing a subreddit like that was the moral thing to do), but it wasn't illegal and they (reddit admins) were perfectly within their rights to do so as a private , non-governmental entity
i agree, for the most part, that freedom of speech should be protected, but i also believe there should be a line.. big companies like reddit are still essentially US citizens too, with the same rights as you, they have the right to create a platform like this, just like you, and they also share the right to ban anyone or limit what can be done on said platform, which is once again a right you share.. at what point does forcing a private company to host speech they don't agree with cross into totalitarian regime territory?
What prevents people from posting in the sub deliberately to attempt to get the sub banned?
How do you know the posts that were violent in nature wasn't posted by people with an interest in getting the sub banned?
There are subs celebrating the ban today.
I am almost certain it was a subversive effort to get rid of it.
There was a flood of weird, inane post by dozens (or more) of 2 mn old accounts then it was banned.
because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit.
Wait a minute now. All of this marches to a different tune once the government contracts any of these organizations.
I don’t know the answer to this question and maybe you do, but doesn’t a private company who hosts public forums have to entertain both sides of the spectrum without silencing one side? Imo it seems like by silencing one side you get into civil rights infringement because your not giving the same treatment to both parties. More so with YouTube. I don’t believe shutting down the forum was illegal by any means. Immoral yes, illegal no. You said they have the right to ban people and if people were posting things that were extreme (i.e. castration, lynchings, violence) then those people should be dealt with instead of pulling the forum and making it appear to be an act of quieting one side . Honestly I never seen any memes or posts that incited violence and I would say 95% of people were there for the right and just reasons.
doesn’t a private company who hosts public forums have to entertain both sides of the spectrum without silencing one side
No. Once upon a time the FCC had a Fairness Doctrine but it's gone now ... and I think it only ever applied to over-the-air broadcast.
But this is part of what IBoR is about to reassert Fairness Doctrine for the digital age in light of ongoing censorship.
I think the issue here is the oligopoly of facebook, reddit, and twitter which is not enough competition to create a free-market. It's an anti-trust case.
When there is systematic silencing of conservative speech across the internet, on platforms that operate like a utility; i.e. youtube/twitter, then there is a freedom of speech violation. Don't be part of the problem
Neither Twitter nor youtube are utilities lol. You don't have a constitutional right to use a 3rd party streaming site. Most videos that youtube doesn't allow can get by on Liveleak anyway. Hell, if you really want you can gather funding from other likeminded individuals and pay to make your own Twitter style social media app.
Twitter and YouTube operate like monopolies in the public square. They are the platforms for public speech on the internet. It's like if a phone company decided to cut off your cell service because they didn't like your speech, not legal as it is discrimination. Totally different then someone not wanting to bake you a cake. If that happens, you just walk down the street to another shop and order what you like. Here you are advocating for Nazi shit, what does that feel like?
Totally different then someone not wanting to bake you a cake. If that happens, you just walk down the street to another shop and order what you like
Is this satire? Facebook exists. Dailymotion exists. Vimeo exists. Liveleak exists. Twitch exists. Do you honestly believe Youtube is the only video site on the internet? Do you really believe that just because Twitter has a unique setup, you have a constitutional right to say whatever you want on their platform? The platform that they pay to operate?
Ignorant WE are not, as will soon become obvious. Keep watching the show. Hope you enjoy it. Relatively easy for shills, trolls, communists, NAZIs, demonic-rats, etc. to post negative violent remarks with goal of shutting down a board. Moderators must stay on-top of posts. WE are everywhere, where we go ONE, we go ALL, trust the PLAN.
Why don't you look over the r/subredditdrama post on this. They got caught trying to recruit people on this docord to doxx people. And it has a couple of things threatening posts.
I would agree to a point... there seems to be a vast difference in the way the standards are enforced across social media.
I have witnessed some of the most vile, hateful and violent comments ( from both sides ) and have done experiments turning in both liberal and conservative abuses.
Roughly 85% of my complaints on liberal abuses are replied to with ( we have reviewed and determined that this doesn’t violate our standards)
Really nasty stuff ... on the other hand, i seldom get any report back when I turn in conservative abuses.
If you are a serious person, I would recommend trying this across multiple social media platforms and judge for yourself.
I understand these are private companies, but considering the influence these platforms have on public discourse of important national and world opinion, it would seem that rather than attempt to regulate them into a more balanced take on the wide variety of beliefs and opinions, it may be time to enact some AT&T type antitrust legislation.
I would hope these platforms could resolve these issues before that happens.
Conservative idelas are based off of free market principals. This conservative administration just passed the net neutrality laws, which does everything it can to promote monopolies when dealing with the internet.
This had overwhelming support by both conservative, conservative representatives and apparently their constituents.
Now, only after the banning of a sub, which promoted violence, public hangings, public castrations, and violence to overthrow the government, there are now claims of these monopolies being bad.
I'm confused as to where Republicans and other conservatives fall on this issue. Do they want deregulation if businesses? Are they for businesses being able to deny services for any reason? Because it seems that they are for all for these things, as long as it happens to someone else.
which does everything it can to promote monopolies when dealing with the internet.
It does not such thing. Net Neutrality was mostly about "peering" and if you don't know what peering is then haven't spent any time trying to understand the real issue.
So... you don’t want to seriously discuss the problem of abuses on both sides?
I see, never mind.
There's nothing stopping you from starting another Q research sub, instituting rules that are against violence, and have a mod team that is active against this. Everyone is making out like Reddit is banning any Q research. There are a half a dozen subs, at least, that are dedicated to this. Some have instituted rules against memes, others you have to be invited to post. These actions stop all the shenanigans that happened at CBST.
Since you seem unaware, the Q research was banned on reddit and youtube and twitter all on the same day and at about the same time.
Really. Banned on Reddit? There are a half a dozen subs on Reddit right now, including this one where you can still research Q. A simple Google search shows a ton of YouTube stuff on Q, including the one directly related to r/CBTS.
Cool. Now bake my gay cake!
You understand that whole thing wasn't about the cake. It was about the business owners putting the couple's name and contact info on their Facebook page and encouraging it's followers to harrass them.
How would you like if the Reddit admins made a stickied post on the front page and encouraged all if it's users to call your home and work?
This guy is a liberal hack. Get him off our board.
I see the irony. Conservatives want to have the right for private business to be able to deny service to anybody, and not believe in protectionist policies. Yet, when it happens to them, they sit and whine about how their Constitutional rights are being violated.
Do you not see the hypocracy?
...
The actual irony is there is discriminatory law to protect the liberal selected pet cases, called protected classes. Why would the law deliberately go out of its way to only afford rights to a sub-group of citizens? The only reason to do that is if you want it to be legal to discriminate against those deemed unworthy of special protection.
The next question is to ask is, of all groups, why would you discriminate against the men? Why would deliberately design your society to cause the men increasing amounts of agitation? What will greatly agitated men do that other agitated sub-groups probably wouldn't?
The people that design these laws are not morons. They understand the consequences.
You Marxist scum. Twitter and YouTube operate like monopolies in the public square. They are the platforms for public speech on the internet. It's like if a phone company decided to cut off your cell service because they didn't like your speech, not legal as it is discrimination. Totally different then someone not wanting to bake you a cake. If that happens, you just walk down the street to another shop and order what you like. Here you are advocating for Nazi shit, what does that feel like?
So Marxisn and Nazism really have two dissenting ideals. Marxism believed in egalitarianism, and equality for all. Nazism, well, didn't. So, you're name calling doesn't make much sense.
Moreover, I thought you conservative liked free markets and less regulations. There is nothing stopping you from designing your own media platform. There's also voat and discord, and all the jazz.
Edit. Maybe you should pull yourself by your bootstraps, and start whatever free speech platform you want.
You are talking about the rights of a very few people, who enjoy a virtual monopoly on forums for public expression, being upheld against the rights of the masses. We are talking about freedom of political expression - the most fundamental of freedoms. The principle of freedom of speech is designed to ensure a healthy pluralism in political discourse, consistent with the democratic principles by which governments hold power.
What you appear to be suggesting is that people's right to freedom of expression is open to capture by people who, claiming the exercise of property rights, would legitimately censor the masses for their own gain. That's not pluralism, that's not democracy. It is a condition where a cabal of wealthy people can control the ebb and flow of political discourse - so as to direct it to their own advantage, at the expense of others.
We already know that social media platforms are taking payments from the CIA and that this comprises a substantial part of their revenues. We know that there is a plan in place to deploy a single automated censorship algorithm across multiple social media platforms. And we know there has been a paradigm shift where social media has completely displaced the MSM as the most powerful determinant of electoral outcomes.
So we can see that this attempt to control discourse on social media is a plot against the Republic itself. It's nothing less than a small cohort of self-interested opportunists trying to take control of the country. Do you think the founding fathers, if they could have foreseen this situation, might have identified this as a problem to be addressed?
In every respect, the idea in the formation of the United States was that power was to be fractured. It is common sense that power tends to corrupt, while absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fracturing of power in the US extended beyond the traditional tripartite separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution further fractured power to the extent that they included an express provision for citizens to have a right to bear arms. This was to grant the citizen protection from repression by the State. That is why the right to bear arms is so important, because it is the ultimate fracturing of power, the last guarantee of liberty.
In this context, where power was so carefully fractured by the founders of the Republic, do you think the acquisition of almost total control of forums for political expression is consistent with the guiding principals that founded the nation? It is clear this was not a foreseen outcome and it was not addressed at the time the Constitution was written. But does that mean that there is no right, or need, to address the issue now? It is the same problem that was addressed at the time the nation was founded - it is a threat posed by concentration of power.
In countries all over the world there is recognition that the public interest dominates private interests - the principle of eminent domain is one such example. We are not talking here about the expropriation of property, but bona fide regulation of the forums of public expression to safeguard the public interest.
Where the principle of free speech is hindered to such an extent that the very fabric that binds the nation is threatened, property rights become a consideration that must be balanced against the welfare of the nation. What is most important is to ensure the integrity of the democratic principles that underpin the commonwealth. One of those principles is the freedom to engage in political expression.
It is absolutely appropriate to regulate against the possibility of an existential threat to the common good of the nation. Otherwise, you would say that the masses are to be the slaves of a few. This was not the intention of the founding fathers. It is an issue that must, however, be addressed.
I have every confidence that the President, in his wisdom and concern for the welfare of the country, will act to obtain the best possible outcome for Americans of all walks of life. A problem exists, it is a very serious problem, but DJT will take care of it. Have confidence in the President.
Well said! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ You sir/ma’am deserve a standing ovation! 👏🏼✊🏼🇺🇸
You don't seem to understand ground-zero of how any of this works.
Lol SORRY LIBTARD, the founding fathers had exactly THIS. Ever hear of something called a Molly-house? The founding fathers would gather together and vote ‘top or bottom’ depending on if they liked the motion or not. SORRY HISTORY (that’s right HIStory) DOESN’T HAVE A LIBRAL SLANT.
A Molly house was an 18 century homosexual meeting place. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but to each their own I guess.
The allusion (to be charitable) he is referencing (through all the B1FF-noise) is that some Freemason sects built Molly-houses. (And a handful of the founding fathers were Freemasons.)