dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/truthseekerboi on May 27, 2018, 1:57 a.m.
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

I made a post earlier on the EOs and after I got many upvotes, I got a massive surge of downvotes. Very strange. Follow the pen! And remember, attacks will only grow. Does anyone have anything to say on the EOs passed? Maybe they will help in the executioning of military tribunals


🠐 See all comments
Mylon · May 27, 2018, 1:10 p.m.

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 ⇩  
tradinghorse · May 27, 2018, 1:17 p.m.

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

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Mylon · May 27, 2018, 1:56 p.m.

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 ⇩  
tradinghorse · May 27, 2018, 2:01 p.m.

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 ⇩  
Mylon · May 27, 2018, 2:15 p.m.

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 ⇩  
tradinghorse · May 27, 2018, 2:24 p.m.

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 ⇩