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

[Into the Night]

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.

The 1st amendment applies only to the federal government. It's of no consequence now since the federal government has fallen. The Democrats do not recognize the Constitution of the United States. What this means for JPP is yet to be seen.
States can pass any law restricting certain types of speech, according to their own constitutions.

[Into the Night]

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.

Section 230 does not need to be modified. I do commend you, sir, for allowing open discussions on political viewpoints here, despite the oft times such discussions turn in to flame wars.

Censoring users by saying they are 'dangerous' is slander. Section 230 does not protect anyone from slander lawsuits. This is the position that Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and Google have put themselves in. You have wisely avoided this. Again, I commend you and JPP for keeping a political forum an open discussion of political views.

[Callinectes]

I think it's your guy that calls the press 'the enemy of the people'.

What are YOU so afraid of.

Oops. Didn't think that one through very well, did ya little fella?

I think it's your guy that calls the press 'the enemy of the people'.

Hell yes they are! Throughout his tenure, I don't think the negative reporting on Trump has gone below 90%. Enemy of the people? How about enemy of ALL the people! You fascists on the left are not being served by this situation either. If you can't say that Trump did an outstanding job during his term, but you just didn't LIKE the guy than you are just a partisan, brainwashed , uninformed hack. Just admit that you voted for biden because of his "personality" and thank the press for providing you with all the data you need to make an informed decision in the voting booth.

What are YOU so afraid of.

Me? Nothing at all. As of March, I will be retired and sucking completely from the federal and state government teat. On a fixed income that I have virtually no control over. I have even promised to stop voting, especially if that stupid mail in ballot shit is still in place. Sometimes you fascist idiots have to learn the hard way, just try to keep some kind of job so you can pay my social security. But remember, I didn't ask what YOU were afraid of. Your personal demons are adolescent and mythical. What keeps your elected "leaders" up at night? Heard anything about hunter lately? Heard anything about the vegetable-elect's ties to the crack head prince's dealings with china and Ukraine? Didn't think so. "But, but...look over here!!! TRUMP STARTED A RIOT!!!" As to the GOP, I'm sure they're afraid of a few things themselves. If I still had any skin in the game, I might be afraid that my country would never again look the same as it did just 3 years ago. But fuck it, just pay me.

Oops. Didn't think that one through very well, did ya little fella?

Oops my ass. Once again, I didn't ask what YOU were afraid of. You're afraid of what your puppet masters want you to be afraid of. What are your puppet masters afraid of?

P.S. "little fella"? To borrow a phrase from the incoming aneurysm-in-chief, c'mon, man! I liked "knuckle dragging morons", much more creative!

[danielpalos]

Since you lefties defend the woman's sole rite to make decisions with her body, whether she makes the choice to have an abortion or have the child, all costs fall on her. It's immoral for her or any of you bleeding hearts to expect others to fund a choice you say is none of our business and one in which we should but out.

Stop complaining about an ounce of prevention. Better contraceptives at lower cost! And, it is more immoral for right wingers to complain about Taxes for social services for the naturally born kids y'all insist on.

[danielpalos]

think of the gay cake argument.

For-profit bakers are in business to make a profit of Lucre not the moral profit of the greater glory of their immortal souls.

[CFM]

Stop complaining about an ounce of prevention. Better contraceptives at lower cost! And, it is more immoral for right wingers to complain about Taxes for social services for the naturally born kids y'all insist on.

Why would the cost of someone else's contraceptives matter to me. It's not my responsibility to provide an ounce or 10 tons of prevention to someone that claims her body, her choice.

It's immoral to claim your body, your choice then demand someone else you told to butt out fund it for you.

[danielpalos]

Why would the cost of someone else's contraceptives matter to me. It's not my responsibility to provide an ounce or 10 tons of prevention to someone that claims her body, her choice.

It's immoral to claim your body, your choice then demand someone else you told to butt out fund it for you.

Not if they are in poverty or simply Poor under our form of Capitalism. Promoting the general welfare means finding solutions that provide for it.

[CFM]

Not if they are in poverty or simply Poor under our form of Capitalism. Promoting the general welfare means finding solutions that provide for it.

If they failed under capitalism, it's not the responsibility of someone else to take care of them. They caused their failure. They made their choice with their body. Let them pay or let them do without regardless of the results.

I found a solution. You don't like it. You make the choice, you pay the price. If you can't, tough shit. Make better choices.

[reagansghost]

While freedom of speech is one of the most sacrosanct freedoms in American history, there are a variety of exceptions to the general principle that speech is protected under the First Amendment.

- Incitement

- Fighting Words

- Obscenity

- Defamation

- Commercial Speech

- Cases in which freedom of speech is outweighed by an even more compelling interest

[danielpalos]

Why would the cost of someone else's contraceptives matter to me. It's not my responsibility to provide an ounce or 10 tons of prevention to someone that claims her body, her choice.

It's immoral to claim your body, your choice then demand someone else you told to butt out fund it for you.

Your line of reasoning seems very disingenuous, at best. It is immoral to complain about the Cost of social services and the Taxes you have to pay for naturally born citizens of our Republic, y'all insist on.

[danielpalos]

If they failed under capitalism, it's not the responsibility of someone else to take care of them.

Yes, it is. You are being disingenuous to a fault and being an immoral hypocrite when Corporate Welfare is alive and well and has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses. Right wingers only seem to complain about the Poor while seeming to be cronies for the Rich.

[NiftyNiblick]

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.

It's not exactly what you said. There are state statutes against hate speech which have to this point not been struck down.

[Guno צְבִי]

LYING MOTHERFUCKER; NO ONE HAS EVER MADE THAT CLAIM.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

For-profit bakers are in business to make a profit of Lucre not the moral profit of the greater glory of their immortal souls.

and platforms are there to platform, not deplatform.

[danielpalos]

and platforms are there to platform, not deplatform.

There is no right to platform morals on a for-profit basis; Capitalists are supposed to be maximizing profits not their alleged morals.