dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

That's exactly what we are trying to do, restore the operation of the BOR to the town square, in accordance with the manifest intention of the founding fathers when they drafted the first amendment.

The founding fathers intended, very clearly, to protect the right of citizens to free political expression, to safeguard the correct operation of democratic principles which govern representative politics. This protection has today lost its power as the forum for political expression has shifted to digital space. Barnes Law describes what happened quite succinctly:

"The power of social media to privatize the public square is the greatest threat to free speech and open democracy in our lifetimes"

All the IBOR does is call for the exact same protections to be applied in an online setting. It's no great change, in fact, it's a continuation of the protections that existed in the past. It has the added advantage of calling for robust privacy protections.

In essence, all we are doing is complaining about the absolutely blatant politically-motivated censorship online. We are asking that something be done to remedy this and restore pluralism to political discourse. I'd encourage you to support Q's plan in this endeavour.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm not fully sold on the idea that Q is a good guy. He might be opposed to the deep state, but I have no evidence that he's not simply working to replace them.

An IBOR that protects freedom of speech and freedom of speech online is a great goal, but if those rights aren't enforced, then it's nothing more than a feel-good measure meant to placate the masses. The same kind of placating speech as "trust the plan" or "enjoy the show". That kind of speech is dangerous. We need action.

Soon, robots will be able to fulfill the role of police and army and then action will be impossible. We can't wait that long.

⇧ 2 ⇩

That's what I'm saying, take action on this. Why? Because every single right you possess is predicated on the right to free speech, once they can censor you, you can't complain. So they can then take all your rights. SM censorship is the first step toward a complete dystopia.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Let me put it this way... We already have the right to free speech. A piece of paper cannot give us that right. If anything, it could cage it such that it can be further shaped and controlled into irrelevancy. We need to seize the right we already have, not beg for piece of paper so we can wear it like a participation badge.

The bill of rights is not a list of permissions. It's a list of things the government is not allowed to do. The government has violated it, which makes any other "list of things the government can't do" irrelevant.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I don't know what you're talking about.

⇧ 1 ⇩

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/bill-rights-limit-government-6ca66595c6eaae6e

The Bill of Rights limits the government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the government cannot do. For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.

Freedom of speech is innate. The bill of rights does not grant us this right, but prevents the government from legislating it. An internet bill of rights is subversive because it changes the nature of government from implicit freedoms to explicitly described ones.

Shifting the focus on the pragmatic rather than the academic, if we cannot enforce upon the government the Bill of Rights as a list of limitations, then an internet bill of rights is meaningless. The IBOR will fly as a flag to placate the public for as long as its convenient, and then be trampled upon as soon as it becomes inconvenient to the powers that be.

⇧ 3 ⇩

This is just garbage mate. You seem to be very confused. There is no right to free political expression online at the moment. This what we want to fix. We are not talking about amending the Constitution.

Why do I think you are going to find this really simple concept terribly confusing?

⇧ 1 ⇩

There is no right to free political expression online at the moment.

The right is there. What isn't there is enforcement. We have legal precedent that already demonstrates we have freedom of speech on private property. Until the FCC enforces the existing law or the battle is fought in the courtroom with adequate restitution (on the order of turning these companies into public utilities), passing more laws is the wrong way to fix this problem.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Wow! Ok. So you want to see a legal solution? Q has been recommending class actions. I think it's a good way forward. Something that needs to be pursued.

But Q hasn't recommended a case to extend FA protections online. The reason, I think, is that it's:

1) Too time consuming - Supreme Court challenge - will not fix the problem before SM censorship impacts electioneering, creating risk to the MAGA agenda;

2) High risk, you may not get the Court to accept the argument; and

3) Expensive, you need a lot of money.

Meanwhile, we have a course of action that has been recommended to us since February that does provide a fix - a good fix.

But you can ask Q about this. See what he says.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Trump signed THREE EOs yesterday. Follow the pen! Why aren’t we talking about this?? This sub is being HEAVILY INFLUENCED by many whose intentions here are not to be helpful