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

PostmodernProphet said:
same clause that protects wedding cakes......
Click to expand...

I would tell you to keep your day job, but you claim to be a lawyer, so in your case, I'd just head back to school. Not the same at all. Not even close. You are confused and conflating completely different issues. One is (allegedly) a free speech issue, the other is religious freedom issue. Seriously, you appear to have a sixth grade level of knowledge about the law.
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

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.
Click to expand...
Right wingers are just plain political hypocrites who have a problem when Others do unto Them as do are Happy to do unto Others. Why should any person of morals take them seriously in abortion threads?
 
Walt said:
Republicans have recently claimed that the Constitution allows the government to force publishers to publish things. The publishers also have to pay politician book authors large amounts of money for these books.

I always thought one of the freedoms of the press was the freedom not to publish something. If a book publisher does not want to publish a book, they are free to not publish the book. They do have to pay the contractual obligations, but not the full advance. Likewise, Twitter does not have to publish trump's anti-American tweets.

There are more possible internet addresses than there are atoms in the universe. You want to setup your own servers, go ahead and do it.

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.
Click to expand...

I have never heard that claim you got a link
 
danielpalos said:
Right wingers are just plain political hypocrites who have a problem when Others do unto Them as do are Happy to do unto Others. Why should any person of morals take them seriously in abortion threads?
Click to expand...

When someone supports abortion on demand, they're a hypocrite if they claim to have morals.
 
Walt said:
CDA 230 is allowed, even if the intermediaries makes editorial decisions, and even requires a good faith attempt to track down illegal material. An example of the later is Kim Dotcom who hosted user content that violated copyright laws, and (allegedly) did not make a good faith effort to take it down.

Let's use JPP as an example. JPP can ban me based on their own editorial decisions, and keep CDA 230 protections. JPP is not liable if I post something wrong. But they are liable if they do not make a good faith effort to police their content.
Click to expand...

rebekah jones is a totally unrelated scenario.
 
The people who claim this is 1984 and the people who have actually read 1984 are two circles that never overlap.
 
CFM said:
When someone supports abortion on demand, they're a hypocrite if they claim to have morals.
Click to expand...
Yet, it is right wingers who seem to have more of a problem with an ounce of prevention while only complaining about a pound of cure. Only immoral right wingers complain about the taxes required for social services required for all of the kids who are naturally born. Job 34:30 must always be applied when the right wing is involved. It is one reason why I resort to the fewest fallacies.
 
danielpalos said:
Yet, it is right wingers who seem to have more of a problem with an ounce of prevention while only complaining about a pound of cure. Only immoral right wingers complain about the taxes required for social services required for all of the kids who are naturally born. Job 34:30 must always be applied when the right wing is involved. It is one reason why I resort to the fewest fallacies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top