Can Republicans show me the part of the Constitution that requires publishing?

[Phantasmal]

"STOP THE STEAL" was a literal call to action, and the means by which they would "STOP THE STEAL" were gallows.

“Stand back and stand by”

“Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

It is censorship, just not government censorship.

The government isn't allowed to make laws that would censor your opinion.

230 allows them to censor, it does not protect them from what they post, that already exists as what you say is on you unless I ask you to say it.

it's immunity for prosecution for what others post. they should therfore not be allowed to politically edit or delete legal speech more strictly than the government standard. and if not being interpreted that way or doesnt address it right, it needs to be amended and made more clear. seems to me it wasnt really addressed in enough detail originally.


they have to choose publisher, meaning editorial control, or platform.

privatization of the commons demands these safeguards.

[Damocles]

it's immunity for prosecution for what others post. they should therfore not be allowed to politically edit or delete legal speech more strictly than the government standard. and if not being interpreted that way or doesnt address it right, it needs to be amended and made more clear. seems to me it wasnt really addressed in enough detail originally.


they have to choose publisher, meaning editorial control, or platform.

privatization of the commons demands these safeguards.

Basically, 230 allows me to function without deleting every post...

It lets me allow you all to post without blaming me for the post, previously the rule was if I monitored your posts at all then they were all my responsibility and I became the "author" by law. If I moderated any post at all I was then the 'author' of all posts. If I did not I was not. So, either I let you all say whatever you wanted all the time or I was responsible for what you said.

Rule 230 allows me to moderate posts without accepting responsibility for all the post content on this site.

If rule 230 goes away we would need to stop moderating your posts in order to have the same protection of content.

[NiftyNiblick]

The First Amendment allows us to say anything not constituting threat or hate speech without being prosecuted for it.
That's it.
It doesn't give us access to other people's print and electronic media.
It doesn't give us the right to call for forceful sedition because we're specifically given totally legal avenues to change the constitution and the government itself.

[Sailor]

The First Amendment allows us to say anything not constituting threat or hate speech without being prosecuted for it.
That's it.
It doesn't give us access to other people's print and electronic media.
It doesn't give us the right to call for forceful sedition because we're specifically given totally legal avenues to change the constitution and the government itself.

All speech is protected Nifty, even hate speech.

[NiftyNiblick]

All speech is protected Nifty, even hate speech.

There are statutes against provocative hate speech that have not been struck down as unconstitutional.
What the new SCOTUS does in the future is anyone's guess.

[Sailor]

There are statutes against provocative hate speech that have not been struck down as unconstitutional.
What the new SCOTUS does in the future is anyone's guess.

Which is what I said. Hate speech is protected. And you are correct about future SCOTUS decisions though they have yet to rule against free speech.

[reagansghost]

Which is what I said. Hate speech is protected. And you are correct about future SCOTUS decisions though they have yet to rule against free speech.

try this again genius:

there are basically nine categories where the 1st Amendment does NOT apply:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

questions?

[Sailor]

try this again genius:

there are basically nine categories where the 1st Amendment does NOT apply:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

questions?

No questions. If you notice hate speech is not in there. You may go now dumb fuck.

[Damocles]

try this again genius:

there are basically nine categories where the 1st Amendment does NOT apply:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

questions?

It would depend on what kind of "child pornography"... If it is animated (nowadays animation can look like the real deal and often does in this sickening category) it is protected, if it involves reality then there is a victim and it is not protected. So, some very sick sh*t, if it is digitized and "animated", can be protected.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Basically, 230 allows me to function without deleting every post...

It lets me allow you all to post without blaming me for the post, previously the rule was if I monitored your posts at all then they were all my responsibility and I became the "author" by law. If I moderated any post at all I was then the 'author' of all posts. If I did not I was not. So, either I let you all say whatever you wanted all the time or I was responsible for what you said.

Rule 230 allows me to moderate posts without accepting responsibility for all the post content on this site.

If rule 230 goes away we would need to stop moderating your posts in order to have the same protection of content.

it needs to me modified so you cannot over mod and ideologically censor. I know you don't do that, and your a gem man for being so freedom oriented, but others are not like you and should be prohibited from being censorious legally this modification must be made.

privatization of the commons demands these safeguards.

[Into the Night]

Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things.

Fake News.

The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

Fake News.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something.

It is.

If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book.

Correct.

They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance.

Depends on the contract.

Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

What anti-American tweets? Twitter is open to slander lawsuits. Section 230 does not protect them. Twitter is also losing users...and business.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe.

IPV4 allows for 4,294,967,296 addresses. That is far less than the number of atoms even in yourself. IPV4 is still the prevalent addressing system in use today. IPV6 is not properly supported by Microsoft.

You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

And people have set up equivalent services to Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Youtube. Popular ones are Gab, Parler, DuckDuckGo, and Bitchute. Parler is currently offline, but will be back soon once it establishes an independent server, since Amazon Web Services has decided to go political and censor content. Does AWS really think they can stop the signal???

Data scientist Rebekah Jones did just that. First Republicans tried to get her deplatformed, but she had her own server. Then they tried to get internet service cutoff to her home, but could not do that legally. Finally, they sent police into her home to threaten her family, and steal her server... And she bought new server. A server costs less than a thousand dollars.

Lie. Rebekah Jones is accused of hacking government computers with her system. Hacking traffic was traced to her system. That system has been seized by authorities.

[Into the Night]

The First Amendment allows us to say anything not constituting threat or hate speech without being prosecuted for it.
That's it.
It doesn't give us access to other people's print and electronic media.
It doesn't give us the right to call for forceful sedition because we're specifically given totally legal avenues to change the constitution and the government itself.

WRONG. Go read the 1st amendment.

Who am I kidding. You don't recognize the Constitution of the United States.

[Into the Night]

There are statutes against provocative hate speech that have not been struck down as unconstitutional.
What the new SCOTUS does in the future is anyone's guess.

Congress does not have authority to change the Constitution.

[Into the Night]

try this again genius:

there are basically nine categories where the 1st Amendment does NOT apply:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

questions?

Where are these phrases located in the 1st amendment?

They aren't.