2020 Post Election MEGAthread

[Baler]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I might actually be able to go along with laws against "hate speech" if they could precisely define what it is first, but they never do.

Before you repeat that, Read Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[Woke Locc]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Please clarify who you're referring to "they" as?

That was a low effort post Woke Locc.


If people have the freedom to discuss their genitals on this forum. I too have the equal freedom to discuss topics in an appropriate manner.

Biden and Harris. Sorry if that was confusing for you.

Anyway we don't need a law because you can't sue a company for it's etiquette policy. This is already the case.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by Woke Locc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Biden and Harris. Sorry if that was confusing for you.

Anyway we don't need a law and you can't sue a company for it's etiquette policy. This is already the case.

Not confusing, My post which you selectively quoted. had two parties biden/harris and big tech. I just needed you to clarify which you were discussing.

I think you may be mistaking what I'm saying. I want you and I to have freedom of speech. With what biden/harris discussed something we have said or could say might violate what they define as hate speech.

It was silly for trump to try and find a way to sue people on the internet. That's a slippery slope. Just like its a slippery slope to take people's freedom of speech away. whether through direct action or consequences of actions.

It's also silly that big tech legally can't be held accountable for their actions. Some oh which violate the constitution of the country they function from.

Please don't quote this out of context.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Before you repeat that, Read Amendment I



You give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Yeah I should restate that, I was attempting to give the concept some credit, but I'm pretty purist about the 1st amendment. The only speech that should be illegal (threats of violence etc..), is already illegal, and it should stay that way.

[Jibartik]

Imagine going back in time and meeting anne raynd if you were a tech mogul.

Entrepreneur: "Hi Anne! I'm an entrapanure of the future"

Anne Ryand: "What an innovator you must be! What'd you build in the future?"

E: "I built a face swapping app that lets you post your morning feelings"

AR: "a what"

E: "and the goverment moderates it because sometimes our face swaps were hurting peoples feelings but that meant that the morning feelings were not getting updated properly, so the goverment just came in and took over all together"

AR: "What's happening? Put me back in my grave"

E: "capitalism and communism is failing baby, that's what's happening!"

[Woke Locc]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not confusing, My post which you selectively quoted. had two parties biden/harris and big tech. I just needed you to clarify which you were discussing.

I think you may be mistaking what I'm saying. I want you and I to have freedom of speech. With what biden/harris discussed something we have said or could say might violate what they define as hate speech.

It was silly for trump to try and find a way to sue people on the internet. That's a slippery slope. Just like its a slippery slope to take people's freedom of speech away. whether through direct action or consequences of actions.

It's also silly that big tech can't be held accountable for their actions.

Please don't quote this out of context.

Quote doesn't save quotes. Sorry dad I didn't edit bubkiss!

We can do it without a law so your complaint is pointless

[Baler]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I should restate that, I was attempting to give the concept some credit, but I'm pretty purist about the 1st amendment. The only speech that should be illegal (threats of violence etc..), is already illegal, and it should stay that way.

Legally threats of violence are considered assault.
Not to be confused with battery which involves violent contact between two persons.

(not trying to speak down to you, just info for anyone who comes by this thread)

[White_knight]

The Dems done stealing this one or wot?

[BarnabusCollins]

Ya'll so damn gullable. Go take your vaccines and stop populating.

[Jibartik]

https://twitter.com/i/events/1331014582899339264

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]